the names. If the map covers a region of country long known or thickly
settled most of its features already have names. But comparison of
several maps of, or writings about, a region almost invariably reveals
confusion, contradictions and errors in the names. The same feature
often bears different names on different maps. The same name has
various spellings, and the names on the map may in their turn not
agree with local usage. Examples of this confusion abound everywhere,
and are a source of constant perplexity to the geographer.
The names are often misapplied. The name of one cape or mountain peak
through accident, carelessness, ignorance, or by intent is often found
attached to some other cape or mountain peak. A small feature's name
may be extended to cover much more than that to which it fittingly
belongs; or a name rightly applicable to a large tract may be wrongly
restricted to a small one. In the hands of the map-maker geographic
names may be regarded as labels loosely attached and easily misplaced.
Handled by many writers, both careful and careless, these labels
become misplaced or lost; and in replacing these misplaced labels or
in restoring lost ones much confusion and many errors arise. The
newspaper writer writing hurriedly, the magazine writer without hurry,
or the book writer working deliberately, each in turn finds that the
investigation of questions relating to geographic names carries him
away from his subject. If a question arises respecting a
non-geographic term the dictionary can be appealed to and, right or
wrong, followed without discredit. But with many or most of the
questions about geographic names, in the United States at least, we
have no adequate dictionary or "authority" to appeal to. As a
consequence in most cases the writer takes indifferently what is
nearest to mind or hand and thus produces new varieties in names,
variants upon old ones or quite new ones. Such names are called
corrupt until usage and familiarity removes the stigma and the
corrupted name having grown respectable is adopted.
A foreign name may be transliterated by one writer and translated by
another. This course gives rise to two or more forms. The absence of
uniform usage in transliterating, causes diversity in one case, and in
the other as several translations are possible, and mistakes probable,
various forms arise.
The progress of all science is intimately associated with questions of
nomenclature. Modern progress in biologic science dates from the
adoption of the binomial system, and it is not too much to expect that
progress in geographic science will similarly be found to be
intimately associated with a study of geographic names and the
principles which should control in their adoption and use.
The object aimed at in these notes is to draw attention to the
importance of the subject and to arouse discussion; the purpose of the
discussion being to ascertain if there be not certain guiding
principles which may serve to aid in solving the numerous and
perplexing questions relating to geographic nomenclature.
What is a geographic name? Without attempting a categorical answer to
this question I would say that geographic names seem to me to bear a
strong resemblance to the names used in biology. They are generic and
specific. To designate any specific geographic feature we usually use
two words, _one_ a descriptive term, such as river, island, lake, pond
or mountain, and the _other_, a specific name indicating what
particular pond, lake, or mountain is designated. The term Mississippi
River is a compound name, in which river may be regarded as a part of
a proper name. It is the name of a genus, whereas the term Mississippi
is the specific designation. Of course it will happen in geographic
names, as in biologic, that certain features or objects become so well
known that a single name, either the generic or the specific will be
used by itself to designate the object. We speak of Maine without
prefixing the generic term "State of," the specific name being
sufficiently characteristic. On the other hand here in Washington
references to "the Avenue" meaning Pennsylvania Avenue are familiar to
all. In this case the generic term is used for particular
specification. These exceptional usages, however, do not appear to me
to invalidate the general principle that the designation of geographic
features consists in general of a specific and of a generic name.
The origin of generic terms has been much studied. The origin of
specific names has been studied but little and the present notes
relate chiefly to this class. Specific names may be said to have two
distinct origins, _first_, those of formal origin where the name has
been given _pro forma_ and published in a book or map relating to the
region by its discoverer, or by the earliest explorers. This covers
the case for a small body of names. _Second_, there is a very large
body of names which appear to have arisen without such formal origin,
and to have, as it were, grown up by common consent in the usage of
the people of the region.
That which it seems profitable to discuss here, and now, is the
principles which should be adopted and followed in the selection of
the names which are to go upon the map; principles which will enable
one to discriminate when usage is divided, between that which should
be adopted and that which should be rejected. To make this clear, a
few instances of the peculiar questions which arise may be cited, and
then some of the guiding principles stated which it might be possible
to adopt and to follow.
The river which flows along the western edge of New York City is
locally known as the North River. Shall this be called the North
River, or Hudson River, or Hudson's River? And if this geographic name
is printed in the text of a book, will you print river with a capital
letter or a small letter? It must be borne in mind that this question
is asked not for the purpose of immediate or categorical answer, but
for the purpose of eliciting thought and discussion upon the
principles which should control the answer.
In 1793 Vancouver entered and mapped Port Townsend, which he formally
named Port Townshend. At the present time the city situated upon that
harbor, as well as the harbor itself, is universally known as Port
Townsend, the "_h_" in the original being omitted. This is a clear and
specific case, where the name formally applied by the original
explorer is now modified in its orthography by usage. What form of the
name shall be adopted? The former or original name or the present
modified name? And if the original name is to be adopted, shall we
proceed similarly in all cases and go back to the original form?
In the case of names which have undergone transformations through
ignorance or through usage, shall an attempt be made to restore the
original orthography? Take the case in Missouri of the stream called
Bois Brule, or burnt wood, and which has become in the usage of the
residents in that part of the world Bob Ruly, and is so spelled in the
local publications, and so pronounced in the local usage.
When Champlain sailed along the heel of Cape Cod and discovered the
extensive shoals which vex the navigation in those waters, he put upon
his chart the statement _mal barre_, and a number of later maps
applied this name to the southernmost point of the heel of Cape Cod as
Malabar, and so it stood for 100 years or more as Malabar and may even
be found upon some current publications. In the Coast Survey
publications it is uniformly called Monomoy.
Again on the north shore of Martha's Vineyard is a place formerly
known by the Indian word Kiphiggon. On the modern maps this place is
called Cape Higgon. Shall we in this case adopt the practice of the
purists and restore the earlier form? In this same locality are four
small harbors, called by the sailors _Holes_; namely Holmes' Hole,
Wood's Hole, Robinson's Hole, and Quick's Hole. In current usage,
except among seamen, Holmes' Hole has disappeared and been replaced by
Vineyard Haven. Wood's hole has been converted into Wood's Holl,
though still pronounced hole; while Robinson and Quick still remain
holes. In this case shall we attempt to be consistent, or in other
words to be uniform?
In the vicinity of New Haven there is a hill occupied many years ago
by Coast Survey parties, and called in their records Rabbit Rock.
Surveying parties last year in searching for this station inquired
diligently in the vicinity and failed to find any information
respecting it for some time. The place, however, is well known to all
the people for many miles around as Peter's Rock, and this name
appears on the county atlas of New Haven, published in 1856. I suppose
the name Rabbit Rock has found earlier publication on Coast Survey
charts or in its reports, though I have not verified this supposition.
But assuming that it has been so published, shall we now call that
hill Rabbit Rock or Peter's Rock?
Allegany County, New York, is spelled Allegany. A post office in
Sierra County, California, is spelled Alleghany; the city of Allegheny
near Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, is spelled Allegheny. Shall these names
be allowed to stand unchanged, or should an attempt be made to reduce
them all to one form?
In the last century, the place we now know as Sitka was known to the
English as Norfolk Sound, to the French as Tchinkitane Bay, and to the
Russians as New Archangel. The earliest of these names being Norfolk
Sound. Is there any doubt in this case as to the advisability of
retaining the name Sitka?
The great sea between Northeastern Asia and Northwestern America, at
one time known as the Sea of Kamchatka, and now known as Bering Sea,
has been variously written Bhering Sea, Behring Sea, Beering Sea,
Bering Sea, as well as all these forms with the addition of the
apostrophe "s." I will not ask what is the correct name, as the
question in this form seems to imply that there is a correct form, and
all other forms are erroneous. The question should rather be, what
form is it advisable to adopt with the view, let us hope, of securing
its general adoption?
And this leads up to the question of possessives generally in specific
geographic names. Many specific geographic names have the possessive
form, while many others do not. Is it advisable to attempt to secure
uniformity of usage in this regard? I will frankly avow my own
conviction which has resulted from more or less consideration and
study of the matter to be, that the use of the possessive form should
be discouraged and abandoned as far as practicable. While it seems to
me unwise to lay down a hard and fast rule, yet there are a very large
number of cases in which the possessive form may be dropped to
advantage and without, I think, arousing any general opposition to the
practice. When the theory held that the King owned all, and geographic
features were named for the royal family or for the nobility, the
possessive form was very frequently used indicating possession or
ownership, and this in cases where such possessive form has now
disappeared from the maps. Why should not the possessive form be used
to denote possession only? A pond, a hill, a swamp, lying on Smith's
land may be properly designated as it often is, as Smith's pond,
Smith's hill, etc. But nobody would think of saying Madison's Place,
or Washington's Monument. There appears to be a certain principle
involved. Those particular features which are of a public character,
such as states, counties, towns, streets, parks, etc., which are named
for individuals are almost universally named without the possessive
form. And this commends itself as a reasonable practice. Without,
therefore, cutting off possessives from all names where usage has now
fixed them with considerable firmness, there yet remains a
considerable body of geographic names in which the possessive form
remains, but which are not strongly intrenched in public usage. In
such cases it seems to me we may advantageously drop the possessive
form. Let us say Donner Lake, not Donner's Lake, Hudson Bay, not
Hudson's Bay, James Bay, not James' Bay, Baffin Bay, not Baffin's Bay,
etc., etc.
* * * * *
MR. THOMPSON: I hardly know how I came to be brought into this
discussion. The Secretary caught me in his net unawares and
unprepared. I do not propose to trespass long on your time, nor do I
suppose I shall add anything to a philosophical discussion of
geographic nomenclature. I only wish to call your attention to a few
principles that obviously should be followed in the selection of new
geographic names and to show some absurdities and difficulties which
are liable to occur if the sentiment in favor of Indian nomenclature
is allowed full liberty. A geographic name should be short, euphonic,
pronounced as spelled, and have a meaning or express some sentiment to
help fix it in the memory. Especially should these principles govern
when we consider that in childhood, in our school-days, we obtain by
far the greater portion of our geographic knowledge.
The old Spanish explorers followed these rules largely in their
geographic nomenclature, and although "Saint" and "Sierra" occur with
alarming frequency, there is always some reason for the appellation;
either they saw a line of peaks cut the horizon or the christening
occurred on the natal day of the holy martyr. "Rio Dolores" and "Las
Animas" are certainly better than "Sorrow Creek" or "Soul Wash," and
even "Purgatoire"--though the Colorado cow-boy corrupts it into
"Picket Wire"--is better than "Cottonwood Creek."
Some Indian names are very expressive, characterizing topographic
features. In northern Arizona is a steep volcanic neck or needle, its
sharp sides rising in one step twelve hundred feet above the
surrounding country. From the base of this pinnacle, two long lava
dykes stretch on either hand in a gentle curve across the mesa. The
resemblance to the spreading wings of a bird is striking, and the
Navajo Indian calls the rock "A-ga-thla"--the "Flying Bird." A name
well worthy, it seems to me, of being placed on the maps of that
region, as it is on the one I hold in my hand. But on the same map,
close along side, is "Te-ze-ba-a-kit Lake," a barbarous
appellation--unspellable, unpronounceable and unlovely. Nor can I say
less in denunciation of "Zilh-le-ji-ni Mesa"--a name that needs
intimate acquaintance with wigwam smoke and Navajo gutturals to handle
lingually. But what shall we say of "Boo-koo-dot-klish Cañon;" the
Navajo name for what the white man calls with better propriety, it
seems to me, for our maps, "Bluestone Wash." "To-go-hol-tas-e Spring"
could hardly be worse in English. And here is "Sa-hot-soid-be-azh-e
Cañon" (pronounce it as you please or can) sandwiched between "Gothic
Wash" and "Gypsum Valley"--one hardly knows which to prefer, Indian or
English.
"Cañon del Muerto"--the Cañon of the Dead--so named from the discovery
of mummified or rather dessicated Indian bodies in its cliffs--seems
very appropriate, but its brother cañon--"Cañon de Chelly," pronounced
Cañon de Shay, will be neither spoken nor written correctly.
On this same map are shown two small mesas, crowned with forests and
standing beautiful and symmetric in the landscape. They attract
attention at once and the Indian, with a fine sense of
appropriateness, names them "Son-sa-la"--the "Twin Stars"; another
name well worthy of being retained. Some patriotic American has named
the deep gorge separating the "Stars" "Washington Pass," a good
example of the right name in a wrong place.
The sense of broad humor that often characterizes the Indian leads him
to sometimes give the inquirer a name expressive of contempt or
bearing a meaning hardly translatable to ears polite--"Nic-doit-so-e
Peak" is an example--and I confess, with considerable humiliation,
that I was the victim in this case.
I present these instances, Mr. Chairman, to emphasize the necessity of
adopting some guiding principles to aid us in the selection of
geographic names.
APPENDIX.
RULES FOR THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES.
CONTRIBUTED BY MR. HERRLE.
_British System_--_French System_--_German System_--_Alphabets_,
_Russian-English_; _English-Russian_.
BRITISH SYSTEM.
_Rules adopted in 1885, by the Royal Geographical Society at London,
for the Orthography of Native Names of Places._
Taking into consideration the present want of a system of geographical
orthography, and the consequent confusion and variety that exist in
the mode of spelling in English maps, the Council of the Royal
Geographical Society have adopted the following rules for such
geographical names as are not, in the countries to which they belong,
written in the Roman character. These rules are identical with those
adopted for the Admiralty charts, and will henceforth be used in all
publications of the Society.
1. No change will be made in the orthography of foreign names in
countries which use Roman letters: thus Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch,
etc., names will be spelt as by the respective nations.
2. Neither will any change be made in the spelling of such names in
languages which are not written in Roman character as have become by
long usage familiar to English readers: thus Calcutta, Cutch, Celebes,
Mecca, etc., will be retained in their present form.
3. The true sound of the word as locally pronounced will be taken as
the basis of the spelling.
4. An approximation, however, to the sound is alone aimed at. A system
which would attempt to represent the more delicate inflections of
sound and accent would be so complicated as only to defeat itself.
Those who desire a more accurate pronunciation of the written name
must learn it on the spot by a study of local accent and
peculiarities.
5. The broad features of the system are that vowels are pronounced as
in Italian and consonants as in English.
6. One accent only is used, the acute, to denote the syllable on which
stress is laid. This is very important, as the sounds of many names
are entirely altered by the misplacement of this "stress."
7. Every letter is pronounced. When two vowels come together, each one
is sounded, though the result, when spoken quickly, is sometimes
scarcely to be distinguished from a single sound, as in _ai_, _au_,
_ei_.
8. Indian names are accepted as spelt in Hunter's Gazetteer.
The amplification of the rules is given below:--
---------+-----------------------------+----------------------------
Letters. | Pronunciation and Remarks. | Examples.
---------+-----------------------------+----------------------------
a | _ah_, _a_ as in _father_ | Java, Banána, Somáli, Bari.
e | _eh_, _e_ as in _benefit_ | Tel-el-Kebír, Oléleh, Yezo,
| | Medina, Levúka, Peru.
i | English _e_; _i_ as in |
| _ravine_; the sound of |
| _ee_ in _beet_. Thus, not |
| _Feejee_, but | Fiji, Hindi.
o | _o_ as in _mote_ | Tokio.
u | long _u_ as in _flute_; the |
| sound of _oo_ in _boot_. |
| Thus, not _Zooloo_, but | Zulu, Sumatra.
| All vowels are shortened in | Yarra, Tanna, Mecca, Jidda,
| sound by doubling the | Bonny.
| following consonant. |
| Doubling of a vowel is only | Nuulúa, Oosima.
| necessary where there is |
| a distinct repetition of |
| the single sound. |
ai | English _i_ as in _ice_ | Shanghai.
au | _ow_ as in _how_. Thus, not |
| _Foochow_, but | Fuchau.
ao | is slightly different from | Macao.
| above |
ei | is the sound of the two | Beirút, Beilúl.
| Italian vowels, but is |
| frequently slurred over, |
| when it is scarcely to be |
| distinguished from _ey_ |
| in the English _they_. |
b | English _b_. |
c | is always soft, but is so | Celebes.
| nearly the sound of _s_ |
| that it should be seldom |
| used. If _Celebes_ were |
| not already recognized it |
| would be written |
| _Selebes_. |
ch | is always soft as in | Chingchin.
| _church_ |
d | English _d_. |
f | English _f_. _ph_ should |
| not be used for the sound |
| of _f_. Thus, not |
| _Haiphong_, but | Haifong, Nafa.
g | is always hard. (Soft _g_ | Galápagos.
| is given by _j_) |
h | is always pronounced when |
| inserted. |
j | English _j_. _Dj_ should | Japan, Jinchuen.
| never be put for this |
| sound. |
k | English _k_. It should |
| always be put for the |
| hard _c_. Thus, not |
| _Corea_, but | Korea.
kh | The Oriental guttural | Khan.
gh | is another guttural, as in |
| the Turkish | Dagh, Ghazi.
l | As in English. |
m | As in English. |
n | As in English. |
ng | has two separate sounds, |
| the one hard as in the |
| English word _finger_, |
| the other as in _singer_. |
| As these two sounds are |
| rarely employed in the |
| same locality, no attempt |
| is made to distinguish |
| between them. |
p | As in English. |
q | should never be employed; |
| _qu_ is given as _kw_ | Kwangtung.
r | As in English. |
s | As in English. |
t | As in English. |
v | As in English. |
w | As in English. | Sawákin.
x | As in English. |
y | is always a consonant, as | Kikúyu.
| in _yard_, and therefore |
| should never be used as a |
| terminal, _i_ or _e_ |
| being substituted. Thus, |
| not _Mikindány_, but | Mikindáni.
| not _Kwaly_, but | Kwale.
z | English _z_. | Zulu.
| Accents should not | Tongatábu, Galápagos,
| generally be used, but | Paláwan, Saráwak.
| where there is a very |
| decided emphatic syllable |
| or stress, which affects |
| the sound of the word, it |
| should be marked by an |
| _acute_ accent. |
---------+-----------------------------+----------------------------
FRENCH SYSTEM.
_Rules adopted in April, 1886, by the Société de Géographie at Paris,
for the orthography of native names of places._
The geographic names in countries in which the Roman character is
employed in writing (which includes the néo-Latin, Germanic, and
Scandinavian languages) shall be written in the orthography of the
country to which they belong.
The following rules apply solely to geographic names in countries
without a written language, and to geographic names in countries where
another than the Roman character is employed in writing.
Names of places for which the orthography, through long usage, has
become consecrated shall, however, be excepted from the rules.
Examples: La Mecque, Naples, Calcutta.
The rules in detail are:
1. The vowels _a_, _e_, _i_, and _o_ are pronounced as in French,
Spanish, Italian, and German. The letter _e_ shall never be mute.
2. The French sound of _u_ shall be represented by _u_ with a _tréma_
like the German _ü_.
3. The French sound _ou_ shall be represented by _u_, as in Italian,
Spanish, and German.
4. The French sound _eu_ shall be represented by the character _oe_
[ligated] and be pronounced as in _oeil_.
5. The lengthening of a vowel sound shall be indicated by the '_accent
circonflexe_' (^), and the shortening by an '_apostrophe_' (').
6. The consonants _b_, _d_, _f_, _j_, _k_, _l_, _m_, _n_, _p_, _q_,
_r_, _t_, _v_, and _z_ are pronounced as in French.
7. _g_ and _s_ have always the hard French sound, as in _gamelle_,
_sirop_.
8. The sound represented in France by _ch_ shall be written _sh_.
Examples: _Kashgar_, _Shérif_.
9. _Kh_ represents the strong and _gh_ the soft Arabic guttural.
10. _Th_ shall represent the articulation in the English word _path_
(Greek theta), and _dh_ the sound of _th_ in the English word _those_
(Greek delta).
11. Unless the letter _h_ is employed to modify the sound of the
letter preceding it, it shall always be aspirated; it should,
therefore, never have an apostrophe in names beginning with it.
12. The _i_ semi-vowel shall be represented by an y, pronounced as in
_yole_.
13. The semi-vowel _w_ is to be pronounced as in the English word
_Williams_.
14. The double sounds _dj_, _tch_, _ts_ shall be written with the
letters which represent the sounds of which they are composed.
Example: _Matshim_.
15. The _ñ_, n with a _tilde_, is to be pronounced like _gn_ in
_seigneur_.
16. The letters _x_, _c_, and _q_ are not to be employed as
duplicates, but the letter q may serve to represent the Arabian _qaf_,
and the _aïn_ could be represented by a double dot.
The idea is to indicate, by means of the characters above given as
near as possible the local pronunciation without attempting a complete
reproduction of all sounds heard.
GERMAN SYSTEM.