I think I wasn't clear. (Probably because I was sleepy!) I didn't mean that the names of all those places would change. I meant that someone from another language would CALL them differently. People are, by nature, lazy (with words, at least).

They're going to simplify names that are easily translated, or use words that make more sense to them.

Recently, when being lazy with other cultures became politically incorrect, that changed, but like...


I don't know how technical I can go with this, but I'd like to be accurate. What I'm talking about are called "exonyms" which were very common, more so, until recently.

That is: Names with a similar sound and meaning, have translations in foreign languages *automatically* that are NOT used in the place being named.

The first time an Englishman hears "Bourgogne" he can't pronounce it, so he *says* "Burgandy". He says it to the general, he says it to the king, and THEY parrot it back, and it becomes "Burgandy" in English. It's still not the actual name, but that's the name in English.

Here's a list of only the *most* common/well known of these exonyms (only the English ones, but they exist for every culture) can be found here.

What you are talking about are endonyms - The local or common names for places.


My point is that an early cartographer would either use the endonyms (one of the last things to change) OR the exonyms (one of the first things to change - often before there's ever a dispute)... not both.



As for the names in England, Italy, and America - there are three different reasonings there.

1) England - England is (sorry guys!) a VERY small country. It's changed hands A LOT, and every time it does, the people tend to stay in power for some time. So it picks up a lot of... oddities. (More on England/English after this)

2) Italy - these are not oddities, and they are not exonyms. These are languages which all have the same ORIGIN, and that is how the names are derived from so many places so easily. It's not like the difference between Norwegian and Scottish... it's like the difference between English and American English. They're derived from the same place, most of the root words are the same.

3) America is an atypical example of *anything*. First of all, it wasn't conquered - there were no enemy armies to stalk, or walled cities to beseige. America was *stolen* outright. That does happen, occasionally, in history, but generally, the people of a stolen country will rise up and fight back, and eventually either drive out their enemies, or cede gracefully and become part of the new

That didn't happen in America. In some parts of the country you had people from one nation, in others another a different nation, and so on... America was being overrun by several nations at once, in different areas - fine for awhile, as it was pretty vast for the time. So you have spanish influences happening (very rapidly, as the conquered peoples can't rise up again - they are dead) in south/central america, and french influences happening above those, and to either side of the English influences happening in the center, and ALL of these cultures are operating seperately, but between them, they're committing mass-genocide.

Wasn't really anyone's fault at that point - that's what happens when countries are conquered or at war - people die. The losing side dies more. But this was like... 5 different wars all happening at the same time, with little to no communication between them, and small pockets of peace in the center.

It was chaos. So in each area, the conquerors leave their mark "This area will be called THUS" in their own language OR those of the conquered nations.

Wait, nations? Yes. America wasn't "the indians (or Native Americans)" when it was invaded. It was SEVERAL nations, all with a similar language of origin, but with their own derivative languages and cultures.

Each a different nation, just squished onto one landmass, instead of several. People just don't see that because there were no official political borders. But, just as Europe had Italy and France and Briton, and Scots and Irish and...

America had Cherokee and Chippewa, and Hopi, and Sioux and Mohican, and Chocktaw, and Iroquis, and...

As each of these *several different* countries was conquered (by seperate nations, and over the course of *Centuries* of different rulers in each of those nations) each of those regions took on characteristics of its' conquerors.

So you have Italian/Spanish sounding names near the border between north/central america, and French names to the southeast, and English names spread all along the coast.

America also came late into the game. Most of these languages were nearly fully developed, and had started (relatively) modern trends in naming. Cities are called Something-opolis, or Something-ville, or something-berg, yes, but if you look at the people who *settled* in that area, you'll see that the suffix reflected the conquering culture.

So ... take minneapolis, for example - in that region (Minnesota, which is, by itself, bigger than all of England) you'll still find a *majority* of germanic and native-american names, with some latin thrown in in later years.

In the Virginia area, you'll find MOSTLY English and native american names, with some latin thrown in in later years.


In the louisiana area, it will be *mostly* french and native american, with some latin... blah blah blah.

America wasn't one country... it was several, and the names are grouped accordingly.

THEN we became a single country, and opened doors to... well... everyone. And each culture came and built its' own cities and made its' own stamp on their little pockets of land.

That's why America is called a melting pot. It is, by nature - different. *Other*.



But again... these are all very modern exceptions, because America was found/founded in relatively modern times, and I didn't get a "modern" feel from your description of your lands.

And... i was going to go into grouping languages by common languages of origin, and more about why england/english is weird, but... I think this is too long already so I'll go back to my playpen


Fact is... if you want the names, you should keep them. It's possible... might even be plausible, there's nothing wrong with them.. but you asked for discussion and this is a bit of an obsession for me, so....

kbye

xoxoxo