I've recently started to wonder about how some countries got their English names. In many cases, the English names are nothing like the local name. For example:

Finland = Suomi
Sweden = Sverige
Egypt = Misr
Greece = Ellás
South Korea = Taehan-min'guk
Japan = Nihon (or Nippon)
Hungary = Magyarország
India = Bharat

Just to name a few.

Does anybody know how the English got the names from the originals?

Israel = Israel :D

I tried Merriam-Webster, since they supply some basic info about the formation of words, but turns out they do not supply info about the formation of national names.

Egypt was first called "Kemet" by it's natives...I wish it had kept that name...Sounds way cooler...The Romans first called it "Aegyptus", so of course, Egypt came from that.

Hungary was given that name because that's where the Huns ended up.

In Swedish, which is an official language in Finland, the name of the country is "Republiken Finland."

In the Hungarian language (or Magyar language), Hungary is called Magyarorszag, named after the 'ancient' Magyars.

Edit: Do'h, it had already been mentioned. :o

Anyways the name Denmark (native: Danmark) comes from the ancient Danes. ‘Mark’ means field in Danish.

Ireland:
Roman name 'Hibernia', could be taken from the Greek 'Iouernia'. It was also known as 'lerne' and 'Iberio' to the Greeks.
The Latin form, Hibernia, appears in the works of Caesar, who may have confused it with the Latin word hibernus (wintry).

The 'Euerni' and later called Erainn (also known as Menapii, Bolgi, Belgae and Firbolgs) by annalists and historians, arrived in Ireland at sometime BC. (Ancient irish history is rapped up in myth and oral tradition, so its hard to be acurate)
They called their new home 'Eueriio', which would later evolve through the old Irish Eriu to Eire. Ériu was seen in the earliest of Irish literature.

The English named the island Ireland from the Irish word Éire adding the Germanic word Land. The free state in Ireland calls its self Éire.

Scotland:
Roman name 'Caladonia'. I don't know why it was called Caladonia, maybe someone from Scotland can tell you.

A tribe of Irish Celts known as the Dal Riata. Dal Riata (Dalriada) came to western Scotland from Ireland. The Romans on Hadrians wall called them 'scotti', which most think means raiders as they were constantly attacking and raiding Roman Britian along with the 'pictti' or picts (painted men) the original inhabitants of scotland. The 'scots' finally took control of scotland from the picts through war and marrage.
The 'scotti' called Scotland 'Alba' or 'Albu', which was the Irish version of the Greek 'Albion', the ancient name for Britian.
(The name 'Albu' was in use among the Irish as a name for Britain as late as the tenth century A.D.)

The English took the latin 'scotti' and the Germanic land and named it Scotland.

Wales: Roman 'Britannia'.
I'm not sure what the british celts of lowland Britian would have called all of britian before the Romans. 'Albu' seems to have only been used in Ireland.
The invading Anglo/saxons later pushed them to the western egdes of Britian and they started calling themselves 'Cymru' which means 'united' or 'comrades'.
The name 'Wales' comes from the anglo/saxon word for foriegner, 'wealh'.
'Wales' basically means foreigners. Welsh nationalist movements call themselves Cymru. Maybe someone from Wales can fill in the gaps.

England:
Named after the 'Angles',one of three recodnised germanic peoples who invaded britian around the 400ad.
The others were the 'Saxons' and the 'Jutes'.

I heard a rumour that Greece or Greek is a name derived from either Turkish or Persian or similar meaning "land of infidels". I do recall getting a few dirty looks when in athens and referring to the people as Greek anyway :D

Not sure if that's entirely accurate, but I think it's something like that.

The Greeks call themselves Ellinas, at least, that's what kypros.org's dictionary said...

That's what I mean, they call themselves Ellinas, and their land (H)Ellas, others Greece and I think it means what I said, hence the offence

the name "Greek" was first used by the romans IIRC, not the persians

The word "Britain" is a corruption of "Prydain", which in turn is derived from "Pretanic"- the Greek name for our islands. The Grreks also called the land "Cassiterides", which I believe is a reference to tin- "The tin islands".

Originally posted by Kafka2
The word "Britain" is a corruption of "Prydain", which in turn is derived from "Pretanic"- the Greek name for our islands. The Grreks also called the land "Cassiterides", which I believe is a reference to tin- "The tin islands".

Just had a look on the web Kafka2, "Prydain" is the Welsh version of Pretani. The greek name for the peoples of the island.

Quoted from site:
'The mediterranean countries had been buying tin from the British Isles since the bronze age. The ancient Greeks called these tin-islands the Kassiterides, and tin itself kassiteros.
In the 5th century BCE, the explorer Pythias from Massalia came to Cornwall, observed how the inhabitants mined tin and called the country the Pretanic Isles because the locals called themselves Pretani.
The Romans heard about them and called them Britanni, because their b then sounded much like the Greek p.
Maybe Pretani was the common name of the whole population then, but in historic time, it is used only of the people whom the Irish call Cruithni and the Romans Picti and who inhabited the north of Scotland.'

From another source explaining 'Albion'.

'600BC - Greeks found the colony of Massilia, opening up trade between the Celts of inland Europe and the Mediterranean. First evidence of Britain having a name - Albion - (albino, white - called after the chalk-cliffs of Dover).'

Countrys seemed to have many names back then, maybe the Greeks called it Albion and later Pretani or Pretanic Isles.

Intersting stuff all the same.:)

Albion - also found its way into mythology (after being translated from French and back again) to Avalon Legendary home of King Arthur.

Many of the countries named today sound nothing like what they are "supposed to" is because that's the way they were put on British Maps and at the time Britain (and later America) were a world power so many countries followed the "lead", mainly becasue English is such a widly spread language these names are becoming more and more "standerdised"

Poland - land of Poles
Finand - land of Fins
Sctoland - land of Scots
Germany - land of Germans.

Though note germany - not called germany to germans - but Deutchland so it is only our preception of the country names that we see and not the actual name used. mostly they describe the "peoples" that live in that region.

So taking the scotland root from the pervious research Roman Picti who we called the Pitts somewhere along the line became known as scots and thus "scotland" was born on the maps.

You can literally trace world history on the maps, even on simplified "english" maps.

The term China came fr Ch'in, the old spelling for that Chinese dynasty that effectively founded the Chinese empire in 221 BCE.

The Chinese called their country Zhong Guo now - meaning the Central State (rather than the Middle Kingdom).

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Egypt was first called "Kemet" by it's natives...I wish it had kept that name...Sounds way cooler...The Romans first called it "Aegyptus", so of course, Egypt came from that.

I believe it was the Greeks who first called Egypt Aegyptos, not the Romans. It is also the root from which Copt comes from.

Belgium: in the Roman empire, this region was called Belgica
( a lot of European countries derive their name from Greek or Latin, like Spain/France/Germany...)

isn't English a romanic language? That would explain the latin origins of the english names. That's why Germany is Germany in english (Germania) & Deutshland for the natives (germanic language)

English langauge is a vast jumble of Roman, french, Viking, Saxon and much much more :D It's a mongrel language essentially :)

Originally posted by Ossric
isn't English a romanic language?

No. English is a Germanic language. It is a member of the Anglo-Frisian group of the West Germanic language family. Its nearest relatives are Frisian and Dutch. However, it has more Latin influence than other Germanic languages due to the Norman conquest. The fact that English was pushed into the gutter in England for a very long time while French was exalted by the ruling class made it inevitable that English would not survive the Conquest intact. So English today has a staggeringly large number of words based in French (and Latin itself) where other Germanic languages use native Germanic elements.

All the Romance languages I know of use a variation of the Germanic tribal name Alemanni for their names for modern Germany. (I'm guessing 'Alemanni' itself is a Latinized form of the word, though I've read that the Germanic original meant something like "all men". A lot of tribes in history have used names for themselves which mean something like "people" or some variation on the theme.)

On another note, it seems to me that our word 'Japan' came from an old Chinese name for the place. 'Korea', of course, comes from the old Koryo dynasty, a fact which is well documented at http://www.civ3.com/ptw_prof_koreans.cfm :D

I am curious about where the name 'Portugal' comes from. I wonder if there is a direct connection with 'Portus Cale', the Latin name for the city of Oporto. And I also wonder what the 'Cale' part means.

Did a quiz (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40422) on this once, at least for European countries.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think Bosnia is named for the river bearing the same name, which comes from the Roman name for it, which was Basane or something close to that, which I believe was either a Latin word or a modification of the Illyrian name for the river. But as I said, I'm not entirely sure, and of course like almost every other part of history in the region, it's debated.

Croatia is of course named after the Croats, the large slavic tribe which inhabited the Western Balkans around the 7th century. Nobody is quite sure what the Croats are named after though. It is notable that the word (croat/Hrvat) doesn't appear to be of Slavic origin, leading some to speculate that the Croats have a Persian connection, but others could tell you more about that then I could.

Likewise, Serbia is named after the Serbians, and the origin of that word is also debated, but they were closely related to the Croats.

All the Romance languages I know of use a variation of the Germanic tribal name Alemanni for their names for modern Germany.

Well, in Italian it's germania and the language is tedesco (Teutsch).

Originally posted by XIII
The term China came fr Ch'in, the old spelling for that Chinese dynasty that effectively founded the Chinese empire in 221 BCE.

The Chinese called their country Zhong Guo now - meaning the Central State (rather than the Middle Kingdom). I thought word of China came about from contacts with the Jin Empire. I know the Romans called it Seres, or slik, since that's all they really knew about it, that it had silk.

Maybe I should really confuse people by throwing in the "people of the Han."

Originally posted by The Yankee
I thought word of China came about from contacts with the Jin Empire. I know the Romans called it Seres, or slik, since that's all they really knew about it, that it had silk. All accounts I'd read seem to agree it's from Qin...

Also, the term Cathay for China comes fr the Khitans, the tribal confederation who ruled a little bit of China (the area around Beijing), as well as Mongolia and a great deal of Manchuria.

Maybe I should really confuse people by throwing in the "people of the Han." The mainland Chinese refer to themselves as han zi, sons of the Han. The overseas Chinese (those still culturally Chinese anyways) refer to themselves as tang ren, people of the Tang. ;)

The United States of America got its name because it was a collection of states that formed a union on the North American continent. ;)

I seem to remember reading that the name 'Canada' comes from a native word for 'village'. I'm not positive about that one, though.

I've also read that Siam changed its name to Thailand to reflect the fact that it was the only Southeast Asian country that was not taken over by European powers, 'thai' meaning 'free' in the Siamese (Thai) language. Anyone know for sure if this one is true or not?

Portugal seems to be equal, maybe the only diffrence is this

You say The Portuguese, we say Os Portugueses (plural).
And Portuguese as single word we say Português.

India has a lot of names associated with the subcontinent such as Hindustan.

Portogougish... portuguese... Ports... Portos!

Its like roofs - I allways want to write Rooves.

~ Boli

Originally posted by Boli
Portogougish... portuguese... Ports... Portos!

Its like roofs - I allways want to write Rooves.

~ Boli

Hahahaha, nice comparison ;)

An interesting country is Germany. Its name is different in most of languages. Some examples :

German : Deutschland
English : Germany
French : Allemagne
Polish : Niemcy
Finnish : Saksa
Hungarian : Németország
Danish : Tyskland
Dutch : Duitsland

In some other languages, the name is still different even if the roots are closer :

Italian : Germania (adj. Tedesco)
Portuguese : Alemanha
Spanish : Alemania
Russian : Germanija


It's really word when we know countries such as Italy has the same root name in most of languages (Italia, Italien, Italie, Italië).

Because Italy maybe describes the region physically, and in the other countries it's more of the description of the people...

For the record, the Japanese name for Germany is 'Doitsu', derived from the German word 'Deutsch'. They call Italy 'Itaria', which is as close as they can come to 'Italia', not having an L sound in their language.
The old Japanese name for America was 'Beikoku', which confusingly means 'rice country'. Nowadays they pretty much just say 'Amerika'.
'England' they call 'Igirisu', which is an old Japanese attempt at saying 'Inglês', the Portuguese word for 'English'. The Portuguese were the first Europeans the Japanese ever encountered, so they kind of got first dibs on influencing the Japanese language.

Well, the problem with the name for Germany is, that it only exists since the 1870's and it's a mix of various.

Either the name should lean on the old roman name -> Italy, Belgium, Germany. Or take the near translation -> Dutchland. Or describe the peoples -> Prussian-Anglo-Bavarian-Saxon-Allemanic-Frankish-Frisian-bla-blah-bla mix-country.

True. I like our word 'Germany' just fine because it can be paraphrased as 'land of the Germans', and 'Germans' or 'Germanic peoples' is our blanket term for the peoples that inhabited that region before it became a nation. I don't know what word the French, for example, use to describe the Germanic tribes in general during Roman times. I don't even know what word is used in German. But in English I know I appreciate the continuity. Germanic tribes --> German states (Holy Roman Empire, among others) --> Germany. Same peoples, same language family, same name. Das gefällt mir.

I do think it's stupid that we say 'Dutch' for the people and language of the Netherlands. Obviously a corruption of 'Deutsch', which means 'German' and hasn't a bloody thing to do with the Netherlands, I'd very much like to know when and how and why this form entered English. Considering the close relationship between the languages of England and the Netherlands, one would think my ancestors would have known better than that.

Edit: I bet it was the damn Normans.

The Ottoman Turks used the term Nemçe to mean "German/Austrian". I think it derives from Hungarian.

Well, I think the reason the English call the "dutch" dutch is the same why the French call the Germans "allemends". The name of the nearest speaker of the language was given to all speakers of similar lanuages. The nearest to the French were the allemans, so they use the name for all people speaking a similar language. The nearest to the English where the dutch, so theoretically they should use the word dutch for "German"-speakers and not only to the dutch.

The same is for the German-speakers. The all used something like "welsh" for the celtic-roman regions they bordered to, so places called "wales" or similar are found all over the language border.

As for the differences between Dutch/German, that's one of cases where the difference between a language and a dialect is a army and a navy applies. I know that defintion Englisch - Dutch/Frisian - German too. But this is primarly a political differentation. And, because language is a developing organism, has because of the political circustmances had also lead to a different developement of the languages. The different German-dialects where not interchangable, they could not understand eachother, standard German was therefore introduced, and ta-ta, the standard was to be high-german and not low-german, which the dutch speak. "Low" not social, but topographical -> Low-lands/Netherlands and the north-German-plain.



West Germanic: Anglo-Frisian group - the English language and the Frisian language; Netherlandic-German group - Netherlandic, or Dutch-Flemish and the Low German dialects, Afrikaans, the German language or High German, and the Yiddish language.


http://www.verbix.com/languages/germanic.asp

Originally posted by Yago


Well, in Italian it's germania and the language is tedesco (Teutsch).

In Spanish, "tudesco" also means german

I don't know what word the French, for example, use to describe the Germanic tribes in general during Roman times. I don't even know what word is used in German. But in English I know I appreciate the continuity. Germanic tribes --> German states (Holy Roman Empire, among others) --> Germany.

There's no better continuity. French people are using the word "tribus allemaniques" (germanic tribes) to describe the "barbarians" who were above the Rhine at the time of the Roman Empire. Now, in french, we say "allemands" for germans. The name can also come from "teutonic" (i.e tedesco, deutsch). So sincerly, I'm not sure there's a better root and if there's one, I guess it will be the german word "deutsch" since they are calling themselves like that. By the way, I can't see from where comes the polish name of Germany : "Niemcy". I guess there's another slavic root for that.

Now about Hungarian and Finnish, those languages are very different to other European languages... I guess that's the reason why country names are so different in those languages.

About Italy, I guess you're right. Since it's a peninsula... the names come from geography more than from people. In most of languages the name of France is derived from the "Francs" except in greek where it's named "Gallia" (from the Ancient Gauls).

Some times the Portuguese call the English ppl: Anglo-Saxónicos

There's no better continuity. French people are using the word "tribus allemaniques" (germanic tribes) to describe the "barbarians" who were above the Rhine at the time of the Roman Empire. Now, in french, we say "allemands" for germans.

Well, yeah, that's because the allemans settled around the rhine and the duchy of allemania ended up to be there. Interestingly, a big part of the former duchy allemania is now in France.

Teutonic wouldn't be any better then any other word, that is, while is often used particularly to stress the "teutonic" nature of the Germans, it's actually a synomim for "germanic". -> Teutonic tribes = The goths, the angles, the franks, the saxons etc. Teutonic languages = Scandinavian languages, German, English.

And by the way, a big branch of the teutons ended up settling in a territority which is today known as France.

I think the point is, that the old roman and early middle-age sources are a huge mess with many mistakes and confusing name-giving. And I think it's true, that in many regions, particularly France, they did use "alleman" to describe all germanic tribes. Germanics ? Id sunt allemani !

And to the good end, the word "Deutsch" isn't German either, but has it roots in middle-age latin.

Brazil, in portuguese, is Brasil. In the past we also used the "z", but that has changed for quite some time now and the rest of the world refuses to acknowledge it! ;)

Anyway, the name come from Brazil-wood, that was the first brazilian product of commercial interest for Portugal. From that wood it's possible to obtain red dye, in the colour of live coal, and hence the name Brasil (Brasa=live coal)

Actually, the rest of the world aknowledge it. English is the only language I know that use a z.

Originally posted by luiz
Brazil, in portuguese, is Brasil. In the past we also used the "z", but that has changed for quite some time now and the rest of the world refuses to acknowledge it! ;)

Anyway, the name come from Brazil-wood, that was the first brazilian product of commercial interest for Portugal. From that wood it's possible to obtain red dye, in the colour of live coal, and hence the name Brasil (Brasa=live coal)

I some times write with z lol maybe by civfanatics Influence lol

We probably keep the 'Z' to maintain the pronunciation. It's certainly not unheard of for an 'S' to have a 'Z' sound in English, but since we pronounce the word 'bruh-ZILL', it's just less counter-intuitive if it's spelled with a 'Z'. Otherwise you'd end up with people saying 'bruh-SILL', which may or may not be closer to what Brazilians themselves call it (I'm not sure how that 'S' is pronounced in Portuguese), but at any rate has never been the accepted pronunciation in English that I am aware of.

I suppose Loaf is right. In french, the name of the country is "Brésil" (pronounced Breyzil). If the country was named Brasil, than it would be pronounced in french as "Brahsil". The brazil wood is named in french "braise" (pronounced breyz) wood

Originally posted by MCdread
Actually, the rest of the world aknowledge it. English is the only language I know that use a z.

"Z" features in many Eastern European languages, as my friend Zbgniew would testify.

Originally posted by MCdread
Actually, the rest of the world aknowledge it. English is the only language I know that use a z.

You must've not heard Arabic and Slavic languages. Z's are found all over the place there.

You must've not heard Arabic and Slavic languages. Z's are found all over the place there.The "z" McDread was talking about wasn't the letter "z" in general but the z in the word "BraZil" ! :)

Of course the z is used in most of languages using the roman alphabet ;).

According to this website (http://www.foreignword.com/countries/Brazil.htm), the z is used in the name of Brazil in several other languages actually :
Dutch : Brazilië
English : Brazil
Hungarian : Brazília
Polish : Brazylia

However, it's true that there's more european languages using the roman alphabet who are using an "s" :
Danish : Brasilien
Finnish : Brasilia
French : Brésil
German : Brasilien
Italian : Brasile
Portuguese : Brasil
Spanish : Brasil
Swedish : Brasilien

Thanks for that link, Marla. I always thought most of the european languages used the "z" for Brasil.

The Japanese version uses the 'Z' . . . kind of. The Japanese syllabery has no 'si' or 'zi' syllables, so those sounds are simulated by 'shi' and 'ji', respectively. And since the Japanese name for Brazil is 'Burajiru', that means they had the 'Z' sound in mind when they chose the characters to transliterate the name. Otherwise, it would have been 'Burashiru'. :D

Afrikaans - Skotland
Danish - Skotland
Dutch - Schotland
English - Scotland
Finnish - Skotlanti
French - Ecosse
German - Schottland
Greek - Scotia
Hungarian - Sk¨®cia
Japanese - Sukottorando
Italian - Scozia
Latin - Scotia, Caledonia
Portuguese - Esc¨®cia
Russian - Shotlandia
Scottish - Alba
Spanish - Escocia
Swedish - Skottland
Turkish - Iskocya
Welsh - Yr Alban

Originally posted by Loaf Warden
True. I like our word 'Germany' just fine because it can be paraphrased as 'land of the Germans', and 'Germans' or 'Germanic peoples' is our blanket term for the peoples that inhabited that region before it became a nation. I don't know what word the French, for example, use to describe the Germanic tribes in general during Roman times. I don't even know what word is used in German. But in English I know I appreciate the continuity. Germanic tribes --> German states (Holy Roman Empire, among others) --> Germany. Same peoples, same language family, same name. Das gefällt mir.
The problem with that is that it is not precisely consistant with the mentioned pattern "England -> land of the English", "Scotland -> land of the Scots", "Switzerland -> land of the Switzers or rather Swiss". In English there doesn't seem to be much of a destinction between the German(ic) tribes and the modern German peoples.
In the German language itself the difference is made clear by distinguishing between ancient "Germanen" who of course had no nations back then and the modern "Deutschen" with the nation "Deutschland". A nation called "Germanenland" (which would be "Germany" in English) would somehow imply to encompass all peoples with Germanic roots, like the Dutch, English and maybe even the Scandinavians.

You must've not heard Arabic and Slavic languages. Z's are found all over the place there.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The man's right. If the "z" key on my keyboard died, I wouldn't be able to write a single line of Polish. Anyone see this satirical "article" (http://www.theonion.com/onion2816/vowels2816.html) in The Onion? Even a fellow Slav can laugh...

As for Poland, the name could have come from one of two sources. The one that did win derives from the Polanie tribe, who (probably) united the early Polish tribes into the first proto-Polish union. "Polanie" derives from the Slavic word for "field" (pole), and indeed the Polanie wandered the plains of central Poland. "Polska" is just the adjectivial form meaning "Land of the Poles", or better said, "The Poles' Land".

The early Slavic tribes who would form the core of the Polish tribes though were known as the "Lechitic" tribes, and this name "Lech" stuck with many of these tribes' Slavic neighbors for some time, and they sometimes passed it on to others farther afield. The Lithuanians for instance today call Poland "Lenkija", derived from this "Lech", and the Hungarians (who when they took over the Carpathian Basin in the 9th and 10th centuries found it peopled by Slavs and Avars) call Poles today "Lengyel". Belarussians and Ukrainians sometimes ruefully use the term "Ljachy" to refer to us. And yes, "Lech" has become a name for men as well in Poland, though it comes and goes in popularity.

As Lech Walesa could testify.....

That Onion article is very funny, I remember it from way back.

As for Brazil, I find myself sometimes using Brasil, but probably because of the Brazilian people I talk to use this. That and the capital is Brasilia, not Brazilia.

Originally posted by Hitro

The problem with that is that it is not precisely consistant with the mentioned pattern "England -> land of the English", "Scotland -> land of the Scots", "Switzerland -> land of the Switzers or rather Swiss". In English there doesn't seem to be much of a destinction between the German(ic) tribes and the modern German peoples.
In the German language itself the difference is made clear by distinguishing between ancient "Germanen" who of course had no nations back then and the modern "Deutschen" with the nation "Deutschland". A nation called "Germanenland" (which would be "Germany" in English) would somehow imply to encompass all peoples with Germanic roots, like the Dutch, English and maybe even the Scandinavians.

Ethnically, I don't see that there is a distinction between the "Germanen" and the "Deutschen". Are the "Deutschen" not the direct descendants of the "Germanen"?

Ah, but wait. Don't answer that. Because as soon as I say that, I begin to see your point. The Swedes, English, and Icelanders, for example, are also the descendants of the "Germanen", but the modern word 'German' does not apply to them. So only one group of "Germanen" was chosen, in the English language, to carry on the name of our whole group of forbears ('our' because I personally am also descended from the "Germanen"). Come to think of it, the word 'Germany' would probably have been better suited to mean 'the nations of the Germanic peoples', if we had ever needed such a word.

Looking for an alternative, though, the only option I could see would be 'Dutchland', as Yago suggested, except that somehow, through some linguo-historical lunacy, the word 'Dutch' has come to mean 'of or pertaining to the Netherlands'. It would have made so much more sense if it could have developed this way:

England -- Englander -- English language
Dutchland -- Dutchlander -- Dutch language
Netherland -- Netherlander -- Netherlandic language

(The names of the languages would probably not all be formed the same way, simply because 'Dutchlish', 'Netherlish', and 'Englandic' all sound stupid. Actually, 'Englandic' sounds kind of cool. It makes England sound like a Scandinavian country, which it easily could have been if not for the damn Normans.)

Originally posted by Vrylakas
You must've not heard Arabic and Slavic languages. Z's are found all over the place there.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The man's right. If the "z" key on my keyboard died, I wouldn't be able to write a single line of Polish. Anyone see this satirical "article" (http://www.theonion.com/onion2816/vowels2816.html) in The Onion? Even a fellow Slav can laugh...

:rotfl:

I'm Bosnian and that's the funniest thing I've seen in a while. Straight into my profile and to my Bosnian-American buddies. Thanks.

Originally posted by YNCS
In Swedish, which is an official language in Finland, the name of the country is "Republiken Finland."
That is true - and it seems to be "Finland" or "Finnland" or something like it in most other languages.

But that doesn't answer the original question.

Why is "Finland" known as "Suomi" in FINNISH (which more than 90 % of our people speak even though Swedish is an official langauge also), while in all other languages it's something completely different!

I don't know this and I'd really like to know! If anyone knows, I'd like to hear about it :)

Well, the only thing I know is that the two most original languages in Europe are the finnish and the hungarian. They are both non-indoeuropean language (with basque I think). Well, I don't know exactly what's a "indo-european" language, but anyway Finmaster, it means you speak a weird language ! :p

Actually, don't feel so lonely... arabic, turkish, chinese and most of central european languages ain't indo-european. ;)

You should maybe know that better than me, but I think finns came from Central Asia and imported their language with them when they arrived in Finland. Actually, pretty all european countries have weird names in Finnish (France = Ranska, Germany = Saksa, Russia = Venäjä).

Hungary is quite a bit the same. they call their country Magyarorszag because they are magyar. However, as people believed there were huns (because they were from Central Asia), it became Ungarn in german, Hungary in english, Hongrie in french, Unkari in finnish.

i must say, reading all the posts here hasn't made things easier or clearer for me :confused:

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Well, the only thing I know is that the two most original languages in Europe are the finnish and the hungarian. They are both non-indoeuropean language (with basque I think). Finno-Ugric I think; of the Altaic family?

Well, I don't know exactly what's a "indo-european" language, but anyway Finmaster, it means you speak a weird language ! :p Indo-European means any one of the derived languages used today, spread about by the Indo-European peoples perhaps. Like Hindi, Persian, Celtic, German, English, Latin etc. It's a very big language family.

You should maybe know that better than me, but I think finns came from Central Asia and imported their language with them when they arrived in Finland. They came fr Siberia, rather than Central Asia. Finnish shares some similarities with Siberian languages, being of the same language family. ;)

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Polish : Niemcy


Interesting ... sound similar with the romanian term : pronunced ~nemtzi . :)

Regards

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Well, the only thing I know is that the two most original languages in Europe are the finnish and the hungarian.

Estonian language is also a fino-ugric language afaik ... :rolleyes:

Regards

After hearing all these, I really am beginning to wonder what the rest of the world calls us

The German word Deutsch as describing ourselves comes from the word Thiot (old Germanic) meaning belonging to the people. It has NO description to any peole living in the area which is called Germany, like the Anglos= England or Franks= France. IIRC the Polish word Niemcy means the people who are not understandable. I could say the same about the Polish, but ;)...
Although most Germans are descendants of the Germanics, the origin is not completely clear. The tribes living in Germany were also of slavic and baltic origin (the Pruzzen (Prussian f.e.)). In all times (only known 12 years of barbary less) someone could become a German without any big problems. In the ancient a good worker or warrior might have been a numidic slve who run away but become member of a Germanic tribe. Nevertheless the German law say that if someone has German origin he can become a german even today. Thats why many Russians of German origin became German after 1990. This is the ius sanguis. Other people had bigger problems but it was possible at least. With the reform of 1998 of the German Reichs- und Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz (RuStAG), the law which gives the point of becoming a German (today it is called only Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz, but elder literatures name is still in use, but not officially any more, although it is the sam (changed) law), it was made easier to become a German.
The Dutch language is indeed not more than a German dialect, but the dutch would kill me if I say that loud. Neverthless it is so similar with other low German dialect that only political decisions can make it an own language. But a scientific point of view must be that Dutch is a German language.
The Frisian is much more an own language. Together with the language of the Sorbs and Wends (a slavic language) it is a language of a minority in Germany which is protected by laws (school classes in this areas learn these languages).

Adler

Originally posted by Tsargrad
After hearing all these, I really am beginning to wonder what the rest of the world calls us Danish : Australien
Dutch : Australië
English : Australia
Finnish : Australia
French : Australie
German : Australien
Greek : Αυστραλία
Hungarian : Ausztrália
Italian : Australia
Portuguese : Austrália
Spanish : Australia
Swedish : Australien
Polish : Australia
Russian : Австралия
Arabic : أستراليا

African timeline

Ham=Kush=Nubian=Egypt=Babylonians=Chaldeans= Canaanites=Phoenicians= Elamites(original
Persians)=black Athena=Cartage=Moors (the real Muslim conquest of Europe)

Caucasian timeline

Japhetic=gog=magog=Caucasian=?

black Athena? a rather preposterous notion for the name of Africa if I do say so myself

same thing goes for Ham

:lol: black athena

I know that "stan" means land of. so when we say Afghanistan we say land of the afghans. or kazakstan is land of the kazaks. Thats my two cents. just wanted to bring the discussion out of europe.

Well Czech either means "herdsman" or "free" in Avar language

For Germans as Niemci, we have word "niemy" meaning "mute". So it is mostly same as Greek barbarians.

I believe that we have, I believe, most original name for Austria- Rakousko. Historians say that when we encountered them it was at border castle with name that sounded to us Rakous, hence Rakousko.

Looks very cool in Russian

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Danish : Australien
Dutch : Australië
English : Australia
Finnish : Australia
French : Australie
German : Australien
Greek : Αυστραλία
Hungarian : Ausztrália
Italian : Australia
Portuguese : Austrália
Spanish : Australia
Swedish : Australien
Polish : Australia
Russian : Австралия
Arabic : أستراليا

Where do you get these from? Could you do one for Bosnia?

The english word "Dutch" derives from what the collective group of dialects were called way back when, duuts. German dialects were either deuts or diets, I can't remember which. The third were the Flemish dialects. Of course, having said that, I can't remember when this became the adopted usage by the english. Well before the Netherlands became a republic, in any case.

Non Indo-European european languages (english names):
Finnish (finno-ugric)
Estonian ( " )
Hungarian (turkic)
Basque (isolate)

Albanian was suspected to be a part of this group, but no longer. It's ties are tenuous, some detractors think it was a non-indoeuro language that got absorbed so thoroughly that it lost it's former qualities.

Originally posted by aaminion00


Where do you get these from? Could you do one for Bosnia? Here is the website were you can find the names of all countries in 16 languages (mostly European) : Foreign Words (http://www.foreignword.com/countries/)

Bosnia in several languages :

Danish : Bosnien-Hercegovina
Dutch : Bosnië en Herzegovina
English : Bosnia and Herzegovina
Finnish : Bosnia ja Hertsegovina
French : Bosnie-Herzégovine
German : Bosnien und Herzegowina
Greek : Βοσνία - Ερζεγοβίνη· Βοσνία και Ερζεγοβίνη
Hungarian : Bosznia-Hercegovina
Italian : Bosnia-Erzegovina
Portuguese : Bósnia e Herzegovina
Spanish : Bosnia y Hercegovina
Swedish : Bosnien och Hercegovina
Polish : Bośnia i Hercegowina
Russian : Босния-Герцеговина
Arabic : البوسنه والهرسك
Japanese : ボスニア・ヘルツェゴビナ

As it's quite a new country, the root is the same in most of languages. That's about the same than for Australia. :)

As it's quite a new country, the root is the same in most of languages. That's about the same than for Australia.

Bosnia is old. The root seems to be the same, when the name follows a widely accepted geographical location name. As in Australia, which I think is named this way after a greek-source, which said, there had to be a landmass down-under, and means something like "southern-landmass" in old-greek. Or the old latin names for regions in Europe -> Galia, Italia, Britannia, Germania...

Bosnia dates at least as far back as the 13th century, with some precedents dating back to the 10th.

"Herzegovina" is an older German name meaning simply "principality" (Herzeg/Herzog = "prince"). The territory of modern Bosnia-Herzegovina encompasses many medieval territories, each at least partially belonging to the Bosnian historical orbit.

Originally posted by aaminion00
Croatia is of course named after the Croats, the large slavic tribe which inhabited the Western Balkans around the 7th century. Nobody is quite sure what the Croats are named after though. It is notable that the word (croat/Hrvat) doesn't appear to be of Slavic origin, leading some to speculate that the Croats have a Persian connection, but others could tell you more about that then I could.

[/B]

Althrough I don`t post anything at civfanatics here, I feel compeled to enlight all two or three people interested about this, since I am a Croat.

Note:
English Croatia - Croatian Hrvatska
Not many Slavic countries differ so much in their english translation (with few exceptions).

There are three main theories about the proto-fatherland of Croats and hence our name.
One is fascistic stupidity about Goth tribes gaining Slavic traits over centuries and is abandoned by all historians.
Second is that Croats are a Slavic nation (must come to you as a surprise :smile: ) who came in the region in the period of Great movement of Nations. The fact that differs the second from the third theory is the starting point of Croat movement.
Second theory states that the our pre-fatherland was north of Azov and Black sea. Some of the geographical names there and arheological findings have a common word Choroathos (Horovatos) in the time period of second and third century. You were true about origins of this word - it is not of Slavic origin as I will explain later. In forth century, Croats, together with Ants (not the animal) another nation with common origin as Croats, move to east, mainly due to pressure from Huns. In Besquids (hopefully I spelled it correctly) is a name, called Hervara sage or roughly translated Croat mountains. In fifth century, after Atilla`s death in 453., Ants and Croats rebel against the Huns, and regain Slavic customs and names. During fifth and sixth century great Ant-slavic country forms, containing parts of Silesia, Galicia and upper teritories of Odra and Bug. In 568. country is presumably broken apart from the attack of the Avars and Ants dissapear as a nation while Croats move and found so after conqueringcalled White Croatia or Great Croatia with center in Chordat (Chodad) - Krakow in the modern days. It lasted from sixth to ninth century and was made of parts of Bohemia, Slovakia and whole south Poland. From this time most of our names origin: Chrovati - west of Krakow, Charwath - Olomouc, Chorovatti i Chrovat - around Prague, Horith - north of Moravia. In seventh century part of the Croats moves south and founds Red Croatia, New White Croatia and Croatia Savia - these teritoriesrepresent todays Croatia, Bosnia and herzegovina and two-thirds of Slovenia. The way there led them across future Austria - names Chrowat, Kraut (Chrowat), Crouuti i Pagus Crorouvat are found there after wiping out remaining Avars. Part of the Croats moved even more south founding settlements in Macedonia, Greece (Harvati), even as south as Crete. Data about this is relatively plentifull because in these days Croats are kinda "liked barbarians". Because we were inferior in numbers we were known by our unpredictable and successfull military strategies but very defensive (most of the time). White Croatia will gradually dissappear by mixing with other Slav nations and eventually become Poles. This will happen with all other our settlements outside Red Croatia but the names will stay. Name Croatia will fade in centuries after the indenpendent Croat kingdom enters a personal union with Hungary - it will become a name for one of our regions. Hence it is known as Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (three most important regions) In 19th century however name is again commonly accepted during national awekening - Horvatska becomes Hrvatska somewhere in the end of nineteenth century and the begining of twentieth century.

Now about the third theory - this is newer and supports everything that is in second but assumes that Croats lived in north Iran before moving north of Kavkaz. This is in someway supported by words Harauvat found on stone mark of king Darius and written in holy books - Avests as Harahvati.

English name Croat probably derives from germanic Chrowat - name usually found between Leoben and Jugensburg or Chrovat - around Prague.

Since I am writing so much I can try to enlighten mistery about Bosnia.

Bosnia is named after river, while Herzegovina is named after principality who was led by Herzeg. First medieval Bosnia is founded by Croats, before we founded kingdom in X. century, and was realytively small - just area around the river. Later it becomes part of the expanding Croat kingdom. It is important to mention tha Bosnian rulers were given lot of authonomy and even royal honors and they expanded the state east,. Bosnia was also given the right to freely exercise its own internal affairs. In late X. century most eastern part along with most of Montenegro and west Serbia is a truly indenpendent state. At the begining of XII. century Croat kingdom enters a personal union with Hungary and feudal anarchy sweeps across the kingdom. Strong Bosnian state is formed then encompasing a significantly larger area under ban Kulin (ruler whose title exists only at Croats and is intranslatable, althrough it is presumably Mongolian or Avarian word in origin). Also katar beliefs spread in Bosnia forming special version of church. Even if it became later a vasal state of Hungaria - Croatia it functioned indenpendently. In the end of XIII century Croatian ban Pavao Subic tries to gain control of Bosnia trugh his brother but fails. After that Stjepan II. Kotromanic founds his own rule and encompasses Bosnia and Herzegovina under his rule (but still a vasal state). 1377. Stjepan Tvrtko conquers parts of medieval Serbia and southernmost Croatia (with the exception of Ragusa) and crowned himself king of Serbia and Bosnia - he is recognised by Hungaria-Croatia, Venecia and Ragusa. Later he adds to title Croatia and Dalmatia even if he ruled only smart parts of it. During this time Bosnia is used to describe a much larger area. After death of Tvrtko state fells into feudal anarchy and kings lose importance. After the Turks conquer Bosnia the name is used as pricipality in Osman Empire - Bosanski Pasaluk. During the Turk rule islam spreads and Bosnians(Croats) either emigrate or accept islam as religion. After the San Stefan peace - Austria- Hungary who occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875 and Bosnia is used for todays area (since its virtually hasn`t changed since the peace).
Final note: Bosnias teritory changed constantly from year to year so it is difficult in history terms to track it.

Herzegovina is the area around river Neretva who remained mainly inhabited by Croats even during Turks rule to this veery day (even weakened after Bosnian indenpendence war). It is named after the title of the king`s governor in Croatia during the times of Hungary-Croatia. It was a honorary title and the duties of Herzeg were to call Sabor (Croatian parliament), name the ban of Croatia (just for protocol - he didn`t decide who will be ban in most cases) and giving aristocratic rights. He was usually someone of king`s family and future inheritor of the throne. Later it was adopted for that region in the period when it compromised a relatively indenpendent state of Hum (X. century, later will split between Ragusa and Bosnia)

Done!
Sorry for lenght by I am a future history student so don`t mind the somewhat long version of history. I also apologise for all mistakes I`ve made. I can explain Serb name as well if anyone is interested.

obstructor, my boy all u are writing are probabilities and make belief stories, or hard accurate histotic things???

you said i think croats are slavs and croat name probably is derived from name chrowat??????
THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CROATS WERE SLAVS, AND THERE ARE Plenty of theories, that croats were old persian, who in time of darius the great around 500 bc, came from eastern persia, today province of khorasan and migrated into europe, when persian empire streched all the way too greek shores

then you come write semi clear essayS about history of croatia?????

which you dont know that much, especially after 1102, when croatia ceased to exist as a sovereign country then, by decretum terra regalis or kings land, when hungarian kings became literally masters of your country


but i dont want to teach you your own history, or i would make this superlong essay, which i dont wanna do, not yet!!!!

so lets reply your hilarious thesis about bosnia
in this paragraph u write

Herzegovina is the area around river Neretva who remained mainly inhabited by Croats even during Turks rule to this veery day (even weakened after Bosnian indenpendence war). It is named after the title of the king`s governor in Croatia during the times of Hungary-Croatia. It was a honorary title and the duties of Herzeg were to call Sabor (Croatian parliament), name the ban of Croatia (just for protocol - he didn`t decide who will be ban in most cases) and giving aristocratic rights. He was usually again if you are historian, which i sincerely doubt, since no historian would lie so much about that specific period of history, unless he was bias

make long story short and il start too give u real truth

term herzegovina never existed in middle ages, and it was just few short years before bosnia fell to the turks in 1446,

only thing that did exist was hum, region that existed WAY BEFORE

Herzegovina is the area around river Neretva who remained mainly inhabited by Croats even during Turks rule to this veery day (even weakened after Bosnian indenpendence war). It is named after the title of the king`s governor in Croatia during the times of Hungary-Croatia

hmmmm, herzegovina was never around river neretva, herzegovina, or should i say hum, was much larger teritory and was never under croat control, croatian kings, or any croatian nobleman

that piece of land, came under serb control at beggining of 10 century, presumably so, since in stefan nemanja 1167-1196 diary, king of serbia, says our land came under our control somewhere in begining of 10 century, that would be round time of king claslav, but nobody knows for sure

by his time, a lot of original population of hum, were vlachs of orthodox faith, and later his son rastko,thats son of stefan nemanja

who became known as sveti sava by his subjects, confirmed that thesis about hum, and started converting more of local population into orthodoxy, before he went to mount athos, but thats a different story

hum, and never herzegovina, was a general big place, in his diary, known serb king stefan uros, or just king uros 1243-1276 says, that region of hum, is one of biggest in his domain, and it streches almost to korcula, island in todays croatia, while capital of hum was in ston, todays small city in peninsula of peljesac

he also mentions a big Qatar population, term qatar for blassphemous unchristians in france, or should i say bogumil in bosnia , that one that ran away from faith, like they used too say in vatican

around 1332 that teritory hum, along with narrow strip near dubrovnik, was sold to dubrovacka republika, from car dusan, czar dusan, some say greatest serb monarch that ever lived

so, when u say herzegovina u should know that it never existed untill 1446, few years before turkish ocupation, and when you say croatian kings, u should know, that there werent any croats living these

last ruler of hum stjepan vukcic kosaca, who ruled from his castle in blagaj near mostar,, was a bogumil, and there are plenty of transcripts that prove my point

he was just one of descendants, of family kosaca, most influental hum family in middle ages, all bogumils,. starting from famous sandalj hranic who lived untill 1435 and was burried in bogumil cemetary in town kljuc near gacko


then, i hope you learned something about hum and herzegovina

the you specifically say that tvrtko was a croat

not true jack

why is that not true

for instance, even tvrtko never said he was a croat but bosnian, and since he was a royal he had a few of his distant family, to be either serb or croat

when in 1377 tvrko proclamed himself as a king of bosnia, dalmacija, serbia, krajina he said he is coming after serb crown, since he had serb mother,

at those days it was common to ask for crown, if u believed somehow, u were rightfull owner, eventhough you werent croat or serb

mixed marriages occured a lot in medieaval bosnia, for instance stjepan hranjic bogumil, was married to jelena, daughter of czar dusan, she was a serb and he built her orthodox monastery to pray in same town, where he build himself bogumil church , thats kljuc near gacko, centar of hum, untill 1435, when capital was transfered too blaga, and lil later the whole term of hum, was changed into herzegovina by stjepan vukcic, cousin of sandalj

name herzegovina comes from german word of herzog, thats duke, since between his subject, stjepan vukcic was called duke or vojvoda
thats where u get the name herzegovina, from the word herzog:cool: :cool: herzegovina, or should i say hum, was much larger teritory and was never under croat control, croatian kings, or any croatian nobleman

:lol:

I've read that Greece came from the word "Graikoi", a prehistoric name of that region (according to Aristotle atleast)

I know that "stan" means land of. so when we say Afghanistan we say land of the afghans. or kazakstan is land of the kazaks.

Kazak is Russian for Cossack, it comes from the Turkish word "Quzzaq".

Egypt was first called "Kemet" by it's natives...I wish it had kept that name...Sounds way cooler...The Romans first called it "Aegyptus", so of course, Egypt came from that.

Kemet means "land of black" with the outleying desert being the Desheret "land of red".

Australia - Originally named by brits as "Terra Australis Incognito" meaning unknown great southern land."

During the Federation movement, Some hairy white man named it "Australia" and it stuck.

seriously, that is it. I think the hairy white man was Henry Parkes, or somebody Parkes. He pushed for Australia to be one big country.

I have to correct you violentjack
Point one- There is no hard proof that Croats are either Persian or Slav - but Slav theory has more supporters althrough Persian theory is on the rise. Main reason that there is approximately ten time more arheological proof for the second one than just two writings for the third but i state again both theories differ only in starting point of proto-Croat migration.

Point two - I never claimed that Croatia remained sovereign after 1102. - find the proof that I am because I clearly state that Croatia entered personal union with Hungary.

Point three - I never stated in which century name Herzegovina was found for the region. Hum existed until the Turkish invasion, as I stated, but perhaps I should mention the exact century which was never clearly stated as the term is used only after Turkish invasion. We neughbour Herzegovina so I know well for what the term used for (and it is quite actually smaller than in some other history terms.


Big mistake now-population of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Croats - well until Turkish invasion. The fact is that they found a splinter state. They never were under official Croatian control but Bosnia in fact is a Croat state which only differed in the fact that they accepted qutar beliefs and modified slightly the letter they used. But again in that time three other Croatian dialects exist, we just swichted from Glagiolic to Latinic letter. Bosnia is a splinter Croatian state populated by Croatians mainly. They never infact stated themselves so but remained sovereign. Croat noblemen always influenced Bosnia in at least mild terms and sometimes even direct.I can prove that Croatia influenced Bosnia rule but even Bosnia influenced Croatian rule (or better said Croatia in Hungary-Croatia).
Pavao Subic 1299. states himself ban of Dalmatia, Croatia and master of Bosnia which he gained control althrough it is not in Hungary-Croatia.
Fact is that Stjepan Kotromanic and Kotromanics as family were put as rulers of Bosnia under good hand of Subics (Croats they are - see now i STATE that someone is a Croat) - but Stjepan II Kotromanic decided to pursue his own goals when power of the Subics failed. In XIII. century even they mesed up with Croatia politics.

Point four - I never said Tvrtko was Croat - you just don`t know how to read.

"After that Stjepan II. Kotromanic founds his own rule and encompasses Bosnia and Herzegovina under his rule (but still a vasal state). 1377. Stjepan Tvrtko conquers parts of medieval Serbia and southernmost Croatia (with the exception of Ragusa) and crowned himself king of Serbia and Bosnia - he is recognised by Hungaria-Croatia, Venecia and Ragusa. Later he adds to title Croatia and Dalmatia even if he ruled only smart parts of it."

SEE?
There is no sentence that claims that. So you are just making up mistakes now.

Point five - in tenth century Croats and Vlachs both live at Hum - but Croats continue to settle that area. In the centuries to come Vlachs will become a minority, but still significant until the XV. century when they will start move because of Turks, and later under the Turks. Story about Sava is true.

Point six - I do not mention Croatian king - infact I do not mention even one as you have clearly noticed. But I do mention Hungarian-Croatian kings - who are originally Hungarian dynasty
"that piece of land, came under serb control at begining of 10 century, presumably so, since in stefan nemanja 1167-1196 diary, king of serbia, says our land came under our control somewhere in begining of 10 century, that would be round time of king claslav, but nobody knows for sure"
It may come under Serb control in 11th century but not in tenth or until the end. Also I do not know anything about longer control of it - it remained quite sovereign. Dusans empire was quite short lived as it grew under his rule it got small after his death. - here you mentioned one king.

Point seven - again Tvrtko - again I do not claim he is Croat you can check it once again - nor I claim that he ever thought of Bosnia as a Croat state althrough "bosnians" are pretty much Croats -fact is that in that time there is only a handful of Serbs on the eastern fringes as Serbs haven`t yet been pushed west until Turkish invasion. Your claim about term Herzegovina coming in history about 1435. probably is true I do not oppose it - but in just thirty years both Bosnia and Herzegovina will be overrun by Turks, except for Ragusa which will keep it self indenpendent unitl napoleon. About the crown part whole world was that - claim a country because of a single cousin in the royal family.

Last fact - do you know that Herzegovina comes form the word herzeg - to equal duke with herzeg is wrong becaues for all we known both words Herzeg and Herzog may come from same source. linuguistic it is not konwn. Perhaps even word herzeg comes from Herzog - but Herzegovina was named after herzeg - althrough it is one of the common history delusions- Herzegs never ruled Herzegovina but was named after it, wrongly thought that it was after herzog. Magellan never finished his voyage but he is considered to be the first man who sailed around the world.


:eek: You could learn how to read carefully before because you attacked me mainly of stuff I never written.

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
Australia - Originally named by brits as "Terra Australis Incognito" meaning unknown great southern land."

During the Federation movement, Some hairy white man named it "Australia" and it stuck.

seriously, that is it. I think the hairy white man was Henry Parkes, or somebody Parkes. He pushed for Australia to be one big country.

Imagine if all the colonies formed their own separate states.. Wonder what it would be like down here, and how would our sporting feats be.

Tasmania would be in trouble, and Victoria would be victorious!

Funnily enough, Gladstone was briefly the capital of a Northern state, consisting of the territory north of a line drawn between Broome and Hervey Bay. Thankfully someone told them to stuff it.

Does anyone know where the name Canada comes from?

I heard a very interesting theory, which no doubt has been repressed by every Canadian leader like an embarrassing family secret. When the Spanish were rolling round the Gulf of Mexico like laundry in a washing machine, they explored the southern coast of the US, of course. However, when they progressed inland, they regularly came across... nothing. So they tried again. Nope. Just grassland. Endless plains. No cities, no mountains. Nothing. Nada. So on the maps which they were creating across the vast tracts of the midwest US (with a cedilla beneath the 'C') they wrote:

'Ca Nada'

'That's nothing'

Hence this term was progressively pushed ever northward until it rested over that great modern-day nation (I'm aware that medieval Spanish is different from modern Spanish.)

A perfectly plausible and prosaic explanation. In my mind, and as a Canadian-passport holder, it's a far more believable story than the Huron 'sparkling waters' which nobody seems to be able to back up.

beginig at mid 1970, when national geographic was traveling in iran, they talked to one old guy, member of persian tribe hiruhwati which numbered around 50 000 people then, and he said that majority of his old tribe migrated too europe, at time when persian emipre streched too the greek shores

their leader barba, familiar enough, barba is how croats still call them self in adriatic coast took their tribe from persia into modern day europe, i presume

origin of white race is modern day persia, and sorry swedes, fins, dutch, germans, and others, but thats where white man came from later moved to europe, some tribes later like hungarians from central asian stepes in 8 or 9 century, bulgars, from volga plato, into modern day bulgary, and other tribes, races and different faces

theory that croats came from slavic land is just not true, and even some croat historians, said that croats must have come from iran or central asia present

doesnt mater if it is not the same herzog of this, even stjepan vukcic said he gave name of his province, from the name hapsburg nobility

u said croats and serbs lived in hum at begining of 10 century?

, see maybe true but in hIs papers, czar uros knows traveler of serb land, states that in hum majority of people are vlach ortodox, with some serb nobility, doesnt mention croats, but again , u dont have too believe all his stories, since its just his point of view

croats did settle first in bosnia,im not saying thats not true, or the fact in time of kralj tomsilav croatia was balkan superpower that strEched from bar in modern day montenegro, and majority of present day bosnia was under croat control, which is true

ok, then u mention subics, croat nobility from adriatic coast subici bribinjski, who were rulers of bosnia, for less then 20 years,

name bribinski came after they were given posesion of town of bribir in adriatic coast, shortly after they were given trau( trogir) in 1222

they came into bosnia with greatest of deciet, when bosnia was without rulers, civil war was puting unfortunate country into despair, some would say bosnia dark ages, economy was ruineD

, nobility like kotromanic, kosace, pavlovic, were all fighting for crown, and somehow subic menaged too took over bosnia until 1318 , when stjepan kotromanic, and his dinasty of kotromanic became bosnian rulers, stjepan cousin tvrko was greatest of bosnian rulers , but thats different story

Does anyone know where the name Canada comes from?

majority of colonies, whether british or french in northg ameirc,a gave name of their colonies, by present indian tribe that existed there

such is the story with state of massachusets in usa, that was named after indian tribe, or plenty of cities and states across usa

even though french were first to setle in present day canada, and gae name to most of cities in modern day quebec like montreal, kings city, maybe they were influences by indian tribes in canada, like in usa, and gave name of country by indian tribes

@violentjack re: Canada
Read my post two above

Violentjack,

you've just reminded me about the Bulgarians. Nobody's brought this one up, but the name is not particularly flattering. I looked it up in the dictionary at home one day (can't remember why) and the name Bulgaria comes from the Latin bulgarus.

To quote Webster's (from the excellent www.hyperdictionary.com)

\Bug"ger\, n. [F. bougre, fr. LL. Bulgarus, a Bulgarian,
and also a heretic; because the inhabitants of Bulgaria were
infected with heresy. Those guilty of the crime of buggery
were called heretics, because in the eyes of their
adversaries there was nothing more heinous than heresy, and
it was therefore thought that the origin of such a vice could
only be owing to heretics.]
1. One guilty of buggery or unnatural vice; a sodomite.

2. A wretch; -- sometimes used humorously or in playful
disparagement. [Low]

I'm sure that modern-day Bulgarians are blissfully unaware of their reputation!

Originally posted by Balastulin
I heard a very interesting theory, which no doubt has been repressed by every Canadian leader like an embarrassing family secret. When the Spanish were rolling round the Gulf of Mexico like laundry in a washing machine, they explored the southern coast of the US, of course. However, when they progressed inland, they regularly came across... nothing. So they tried again. Nope. Just grassland. Endless plains. No cities, no mountains. Nothing. Nada. So on the maps which they were creating across the vast tracts of the midwest US (with a cedilla beneath the 'C') they wrote:

'Ca Nada'

'That's nothing'


This story seems unlikely to me. Not impossible, of course. As far as I know, it's possible. But unlikely.

The explanation given in the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia is: "The name Canada comes from a word meaning 'village' or 'community' in one of the indigenous Iroquoian languages."

Of course, they don't say which one. And since I don't speak any Iroquoian languages, I can't confirm or deny that any of them contain any words for 'village' or 'community' that look remotely like 'Canada'. But considering the large number of places in the Americas with Native-derived names, I would think this explanation is more likely than the idea that the Spanish wrote "That's nothing" on their maps and someone else took it for a place name. But as far as I'm aware, nothing is proven.

Glad we could agree Violentjack - about Hum - source is Bizant emperor but I cannot say which one as I am not accesible to literature (winter holidays - scool and libraries closed).
Squabbling bout name of herzegovina was pretty stupid.
About theries I konw for the third theory but our historians official opinion is that is not fully acknowledged I checked - but much sympathize it because it explains from where did we come since we gained Slavic treats in fifth century.

So Canada is named after Indian word?

I know it is unrelated but is it the kangaroo name story true?

Ca nada = Canada sounds very much like an urban legend to me. It is a nice story, is coherent, has a plausible, easy understandable plot (ca nada) and makes someone look like a fool .

The origins of Canada according the Iroqouis village thing was that when the met the explorers they gestured to thier village and said Ca na da which the explorers thought he was referring to the whole country not his village.

As for the Ce Nada

I have never heard this and highly doubt it. :)

Originally posted by Yago
Ca nada = Canada sounds very much like an urban legend to me. It is a nice story, is coherent, has a plausible, easy understandable plot (ca nada) and makes someone look like a fool .

Precisely. I tend to be wary of etymologies that even have a plot. Ever since I started getting into urban legend research, I've found it harder and harder to take a good story like the 'ca nada' one at face value. Unfortunately, most stories that complex turn out to be fiction.

Originally posted by obstructor
I know it is unrelated but is it the kangaroo name story true?

Which story were you referring to?

The word Kangaroo derives from the Aboriginal name for the creature, 'Gangaru' in the language of the people of the North Sydney region. It was first recorded by Captain Cook's crew when they 'toured' the region in 1770.

Exactly as Constantine says, our history says that the name Canada comes from the word 'Village' from one of the Native languages. I cannot remember for sure what Nation it was, but I suspect that wasn't the Iroquois. The Iroquois were far more to the West (around the Great Lakes). The first explorers to come here (French) arrived from the St-Laurence and met some of the Algonquin Nations installed there. They however never been very far since it was not possible at the time to get farther than Montreal (which is why Montreal is located there, it was the farthest they could go through the St-Laurence... today it's possible to get up to the Great Lakes), thus it is unlikely that they met the Iroquois until way later.

It was the English, which arrived from the South (Americans will be better than me on that part of the history, I don't even know where the United States started from or where the first explorers arrived), which met the Iroquois the first.

As the story could confirm today, the French decimated the Algonquin Nations, while the English did a great job of destroying the Iroquois. Earlier in history, Spanish did the same with the Aztecs and the Incan in the South (and probably with the Mayan either).

Conclusion: From my interpretation of history, I would say Canada is from one of the Algonquin languages, and not the Iroquois. My room mate confirmed that, his knowledge of this story is the same.

-------------------

Fun stuff:

While 'Germany' sounds the same in pretty much every languages, in French it is 'Allemagne', and the Germans are 'Allemands'. The fact is that there where once a nation called 'Germains' (in French), which spoke French, and latter joined France (through war I guess, but I don't know). That is, IMO, the reason why the French gave a different name to the Germans, but I am still guessing.

They were, in fact, the Iroquois, and the village in question was Stadacona. However, by the beginning of the 17th century, the Iroquois had deserted the region for the Great Lakes.

Also, the word in question was "Kanata". It was just misheard.

Canada became the name of the St. Lawrence river, and eventually the territory around it.

Iroquois were allied with the English in the colonial peroid and even the war of 1812. So I dont know were u got the idea that the English slauhgtered the Iroquois.

Originally posted by luiz
Brazil, in portuguese, is Brasil. In the past we also used the "z", but that has changed for quite some time now and the rest of the world refuses to acknowledge it! ;)

Anyway, the name come from Brazil-wood, that was the first brazilian product of commercial interest for Portugal. From that wood it's possible to obtain red dye, in the colour of live coal, and hence the name Brasil (Brasa=live coal)

Brasa means "open fire" in Swedish, and I had no idea this was a latin (presumably) word.


Regarding why Finland is known as Finland and not as Suomi, I suppose my ancestors will have to answer to that. Without Swedes, no one would have heard of Finland in the first place, so of course our name got precedent. :p (j\k, of course ;) )
Besides, Finland was part of Sweden for hundreds of years, so it's not surprising the Swedish name spread.
And of course it means "the land of the Finns".

I've heard the Canada = village story before.

@ CrazyMrLeo & Constantine

While I have a very strong interest into the Native Americans, it would seem that my knowledge of history regarding them is wrong :( It looks like you both need to teach me accurate/actual history!

Believe me what I said what was I 'learned' from reading, but I would be very interested in *better* readings

I heard that the Yucatan peninsula (In soutern Mexico) is called that because a Spaniard asked a local villager what the place's name was and he replied Yu Ca Tan, supposedly meaning, "I don't understand" because the spaniard had asked him in Spanish and the villager spoke Mayan.
I doubt anybody who thought to ask the name of a place would be stupid enough to ask in his native language, then again people are people.
Thailand means 'land of the free' or some such possibly refering to early freedom from the Chinese. I am curious as to why it was called Siam as the Thai have never called it that.
Oh and New Zealand means New Sealand refering to the provence of Zealand in the Netherlands. The Maori call it Aoteroa meaning 'Land of the long white cloud' (I suspect it is closer to White land long or something but Maori names always have stories behind them and are longer than they really are).
Just my marshmellows for the pizza

Originally posted by Balastulin
Does anyone know where the name Canada comes from?

I heard a very interesting theory, which no doubt has been repressed by every Canadian leader like an embarrassing family secret. When the Spanish were rolling round the Gulf of Mexico like laundry in a washing machine, they explored the southern coast of the US, of course. However, when they progressed inland, they regularly came across... nothing. So they tried again. Nope. Just grassland. Endless plains. No cities, no mountains. Nothing. Nada. So on the maps which they were creating across the vast tracts of the midwest US (with a cedilla beneath the 'C') they wrote:

'Ca Nada'

'That's nothing'

Hence this term was progressively pushed ever northward until it rested over that great modern-day nation (I'm aware that medieval Spanish is different from modern Spanish.)

A perfectly plausible and prosaic explanation. In my mind, and as a Canadian-passport holder, it's a far more believable story than the Huron 'sparkling waters' which nobody seems to be able to back up.

Yes, but it was the portuguese who did that, meaning that there were no worthy civilizations in the area with whom it would be possible to have an advanced trade. "Cá nada" means literally "Nothing here". Those maps (in the late 1400s early 1500s portuguese sailors explored intensively the area and named for example Newfoundland and Labrador - after explorer António Lavrador) ended up in France and ignorant of the meaning of the expression, they used it. Of course, I don't know if it is true.

You got to get India in different languages. I know its El-Hind in Arabic.

India in French = Indes (plurial)

During the Federation movement, Some hairy white man named it "Australia" and it stuck.

Its alllllways the hairy white man :rolleyes:

Yes, and France is still called Frankreich by the German. It means Frank Empire...

Yes, and France is still called Frankreich by the German. It means Frank Empire...

The free state in Ireland calls its self Éire.

Actually Éire refers to all of Ireland. That and we've been a republic as opposed to the Free State in the British Commonwealth since 1949. The republic is Poblacht na hÉireann, Éire is all of Ireland. Would have thought you'd known that :crazyeye:

and BTW, Rí has a fada on the i.

Norway has two meanings mostly. Either the original meaning in nordic translation as Noreg and Norge. Normannernes rige(the land of the norse). Or Norvegen, Norway etc which means basicly as u read it - the road north.

I think Swedens nordic name 'Sverige' comes from Sveernes rige(the land of the sve (sveerne)). Today I have no idea, sveerne and the danes land?

Reich or Rige don't necesarilly have to do something with Reich in the context that it means an empire, I think it's more an abrivation for 'The land of <insert ethnic populations name>'. So Frankreich would be the land of the franks.

I do not know if this has been posted yet... but..

Russia is named because in an Older Russian (Im pretty sure its not in Modern Russian.. I asked my father and he says he's never heard of it) language, Rus, means light.. I think it was one of the Viking settlers called it Land of Rus, and Russia was called Russiya and then English heard Russiya and said Russia.. Russia is a very crude wording of Russiya... Russiya is much more.. soft.. Russia is hard and crude..

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
An interesting country is Germany. Its name is different in most of languages. Some examples :

German : Deutschland
English : Germany
French : Allemagne
Polish : Niemcy
Finnish : Saksa
Hungarian : Németország
Danish : Tyskland
Dutch : Duitsland

In some other languages, the name is still different even if the roots are closer :

Italian : Germania (adj. Tedesco)
Portuguese : Alemanha
Spanish : Alemania
Russian : Germanija


It's really word when we know countries such as Italy has the same root name in most of languages (Italia, Italien, Italie, Italië).

Just to tell you, Russians also use the Polish use of Niemcy.

Niemcy, Nemenski...

Originally posted by Tom|420
India in French = Indes (plurial) Well, actually India is called Inde (singular) in French. "Indes" (plural) is the french word for "Indies".

Originally posted by Ukraineboy
I do not know if this has been posted yet... but..

Russia is named because in an Older Russian (Im pretty sure its not in Modern Russian.. I asked my father and he says he's never heard of it) language, Rus, means light.. I think it was one of the Viking settlers called it Land of Rus, and Russia was called Russiya and then English heard Russiya and said Russia.. Russia is a very crude wording of Russiya... Russiya is much more.. soft.. Russia is hard and crude..

IIRC the name of the one of the first vikings in Russia was named Rus, hence the name, Russia.

If someone got the facts on this, I'd like see it.. I've heard many many things about the origin of the name "Russia" of which this one and the one quoted from Ukraineboy seem most likely.

Originally posted by Singularity
I think Swedens nordic name 'Sverige' comes from Sveernes rige(the land of the sve (sveerne)). Today I have no idea, sveerne and the danes land?

In Swedish it is Sverige, which derives from "Svearnas Rike" or "Svea Rike". "Rike" meaning "kingdom" and "svear" being an elder name for Swedes.

Something like that :)

Modern Archaeologists say that the first state in Russia was founded by the Vinking tribe Rus. From that Russia was born. This happened near Nowgorod, the old Russian capital.

Adler

Originally posted by Adler17
The Dutch language is indeed not more than a German dialect, but the dutch would kill me if I say that loud. Neverthless it is so similar with other low German dialect that only political decisions can make it an own language. But a scientific point of view must be that Dutch is a German language.

I won't kill you for saying that :) but it's simply not true. For starters, it's a misconception that there has always been a "German" language. In fact, in the early and later Middle Ages, the whole area which is now called Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Flanders, was a kind of linguistic continuum, in which each tribe had its own dialect, which was nonetheless rather similar to that of the neighbouring tribe. Political developments after the Middle Ages have brought about a situation in which two more or less artificial languages, German and Dutch, emerged from this linguistic continuum.

In the 12th and 13th centuries, Flanders (Ghent, Bruges) held the cultural focus of the Low Countries. In the 14th and 15th centuries the focus shifted to Brabant (Brussels, Antwerp), and after that the province of Holland (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Leyden) gained cultural dominance. The modern Dutch language has its roots in the old dialects of these three regions.

Now when you take any text that is written in Middle Dutch (a term denoting the several dialects spoken in the Low Countries before ca. 1600), and you compare it to texts written in what is now Germany in the same period, you will find that the difference then was as big as it is now. When you read Walther von der Vogelweide or Wolfram von Eschenbach (both ca. 1200), you say: Hey, that's old German. However, when you read Van den Vos Reinaerde or Hadewych's (aka Hadewijch) poetry (both ca. 1250), there is nothing in the language that you will associate with modern German rather than modern Dutch. So your claim is without any foundation. German and Dutch are related, yes, just as Norwegian and Swedish are. But neither is a dialect of the other.

O l d e n b a r n e v e l t

Originally posted by Adler17
Modern Archaeologists say that the first state in Russia was founded by the Vinking tribe Rus. From that Russia was born. This happened near Nowgorod, the old Russian capital.

Adler

It's Novgorod, and yes it was a a very early capital.. it later moved to Kiev, then later to Moscow.

Hellas (ÅëëÜò: Ellas), that is the real name for Greece (Ãñáéêßá: Graekia) , derived from the Greek eponymous hero Hellen ('Åëëçí: Elin), son of Deucalion and Pyrrha who according to Greek mythology is considered as the father of Greeks. The major Greek tribes, Dorians (Äùñéåßò: Doriis), Aeolians (Áéïëåßò: Aeolis), Ionians (ºùíåò: Iones) and Achaeans (Á÷áéïß: Achaei) were named after Hellen's sons Dorus (Äþñïò: Doros), Aeolus (Áßïëïò: Aeolos) and grandsons Ion (ºùí: Ion) and Achaeos (Á÷áéüò: Achaeos) - sons of Xuthus (Îïýèïò: Xuthos) - respectively.

Greece (Ãñáéêßá: Graekia) derived from Graecus (Ãñáéêüò: Graecos), son of Pandora - daughter of Deucalion and Pyrrha - and Zeus.

Apart from mythology it is not clear how the two names - Hellin and Greek - derived. It appears that Hellin was mostly used in southern Greece from the Archaic centuries and after while Greek might have been used in the north. The vast majority of ancient Greek wrighters, if not all, lived in southern Greece or in the colonies around Mediterranean which were founded by southern Greeks or thier descendants, so Hellin was the common name during most part of Antiquity.

The Romans extensively used the name Greek. It is not clear how that name was adopted instead of Hellin but according to a theory it was first introduced into Latin literature by Cicero as a result of his contempt and mockery against the decayed Greek of his time in opposition of their past greatness of Classical years.

Personaly I'm a bit wary to this theory. If the name Greek was spread through the Latin Literature then it could be true but if it was spread in Rome before Cicero then it must had been a common name possibly in the tribes that lived between Greece and Rome and that is the Balkans and northern Italy. Perhaps the true is somewhere between...

The only survival of the name Hellin in our days is found in Greece and Greek language where Hellin is still called Hellin and in the period of Antiquity before the Roman era that is known as Hellinistic period.

Originally posted by WickedSmurf


In Swedish it is Sverige, which derives from "Svearnas Rike" or "Svea Rike". "Rike" meaning "kingdom" and "svear" being an elder name for Swedes.

Something like that :)

I've heard that "Sverige" actually is danish: "Sve[a] Rige".

I've also heard that Sweden as a state was born when two "tribes" - Svear and Götar - united under one king in order to defend themselves from the danes. That makes me believe that the danish actually was referring to the Sveas, and not the Gotas, and thus not the Swedes either. That's a wild guess though.

FYI: swedes refers to themselves as svenskar (plural).

Now I hope someone hurries to fill in the details and also explains the origins of the english name, Sweden.

well, in Holland we say Zweden and in Germany it's Schweden...so I'd be interested too.

some others:
- France is called Frank Empire in Dutch too (Frankrijk)
- We Dutch-languaged resemble Deutschland most in our definition of Germany (Duitsland)...the word Germany is very abvious: the ancient Germans come from the area.
- Dutch and German differ a little more than Swedish and Norwegian, but furthermore I agree with my colleague in being a great Dutch statesman. Van Oldenbarneveldt, cheers! ;)

I'll add my two cents here;

The name "Iran" was actually given by the Turkish military rulers of the region. The word itself was actually used to describe the whole region (such as "Scandinavia", "Anatolia", "Arabia", etc.). The word itself found it's way into Persian (Farsi) and since then, the country is called Iran.

The name "Turkey", on the other hand, was given by the Italian aristocratic family of the Medici's, basicly. "Turchia", I suppose, was the first time the word "Turkey" was used. The Anatolian Turks never referred to their lands as "Turkey" before, but heavy trading relations with the Ottomans made the Italians refer to the country as "Turkey".

Hence, the name in Turkish is "Turkiye" (and that's what we prefer to use instead of "Turkey" usually. Somewhat nationalistic, no doubt, because of the name given to the bird "turkey", which was also influenced by the country Turkey as a result of the orientalism of the era).

The word "Turkiye", which means "the land of the Turks" found it's way into Anatolian Turkish. It was used by the civilians a lot, and when the Republic of Turkey was formed, it was named "Turkiye".