Well, I don't know. Should I?
See Miles' answer below. Basically the same, yet more detailed answer you apparently missed on your first 'read'.
Well, I don't know. Should I?
MilesGregarius said:I can't speak to areas outside of Lao and Thailand, but I have been a regular visitor to both countries for many years (Thailand since '93; Lao since '99.) I have never yet visited a village where I didn't get an immediate response to the question, "What's this village called?"
MilesGregarius said:In the case of some hilltribes, who refer to their settlements by the name of its headman, the Thai (I can't speak to the situation in Lao) come in, ask the name of the village, record the current headman's name as the village's, and never update their records. The village is thus permanently (mis)labeled, though not entirely by government fiat.
MilesGregarius said:And a 500 meter separation would not constitute a separate village in most situations with which I am familiar. Quite a few villages with which I am familiar have fairly large gaps in them. I spent a good deal of 1995 in a Lahu village of less than a dozen families that involved a good ten-minute uphill climb from one half to the other. Asking what "that" village's name was wouldn't have gotten you an odd look because they found village names unusual, but because it's the same village.
MilesGregarius said:Even if names have changed, how does this invalidate their existence and use?
You seem to be suggesting that I have serious communication issues with my wife. I don't. Her English is fluent.
Please point to where I've said that.![]()
Yeah, that's fine. People can be quite quick to pick up on and use place names. But that doesn't mean they used them in the past. You've actually alluded to this in your response:
Confusion in this case would suggest there was a communication issue.MilesGregarius said:I am doing no such thing, simply pointing out that among my Thai, Lao, and Lahu friends any source of confusion would come from a different source.
I do think names change. But that doesn't lessen their importance. In actual fact, places names are one of the few historical sources we have in spades. That makes understanding why place names change really important. As you are well aware, city names were often derived from the name of the ruling dynasty. That's a useful insight. But it can be misleading because new rulers sometimes decided to found new courts and adopt new names. Mistaking a name change for a dynastic change (the one being usually more bloody than the other) has at various times seriously messed up how we interpret events. One example can be found in the confusion surrounding Raden Wijaya who was the last king of Singahasari and the first king of Majapahit. For a while it was thought that the interregnum between Wijaya being deposed as king of Singahasari and Majapahit being founded was somewhat longer than it was. To get around this, scholars pushed back the foundation of Singahasari, simply inserted a new king to found Majapahit or supposed that another dynasty might have arisen and that it had decided to claim kinship with Singahasari as a means of legitimising its own rule. That's why I'm interested in names.MilesGregarius said:Now I'm starting to think you're being disingenuous. You mentioned the impermanence of names as precluding there validity in the section quoted above before it was edited.
Confusion in this case would suggest there was a communication issue.
I just asked my wife what her village was called and got a blank look followed by "village"? Now I'm sure there's an administrative name floating around somewhere. But that, I believe, groups a group of villages together. The nearest other village being perhaps 500 metres down a steep hill, connected with fields and a smattering of houses while the furtherest is perhaps a kilometre and a half away with a decent gap between that and the other village already mentioned due to the presence of a rather steep hill used for growing timber. I've also asked what those are called and also got a blank look. (Major towns do have names and some larger villages do as well). I've also posed a few questions about the clusters of housing one finds the length of major roads... and got more confused looks. Those aren't villages in the conventional sense and nobody including Indonesia colleagues of mine have much of an idea what to call them or how to treat them.
I do think names change. But that doesn't lessen their importance. In actual fact, places names are one of the few historical sources we have in spades. That makes understanding why place names change really important. As you are well aware, city names were often derived from the name of the ruling dynasty. That's a useful insight. But it can be misleading because new rulers sometimes decided to found new courts and adopt new names. Mistaking a name change for a dynastic change (the one being usually more bloody than the other) has at various times seriously messed up how we interpret events. One example can be found in the confusion surrounding Raden Wijaya who was the last king of Singahasari and the first king of Majapahit. For a while it was thought that the interregnum between Wijaya being deposed as king of Singahasari and Majapahit being founded was somewhat longer than it was. To get around this, scholars pushed back the foundation of Singahasari, simply inserted a new king to found Majapahit or supposed that another dynasty might have arisen and that it had decided to claim kinship with Singahasari as a means of legitimising its own rule. That's why I'm interested in names.
A discussion in my thread, so exciting!![]()
See Miles' answer below. Basically the same, yet more detailed answer you apparently missed on your first 'read'.
MilesGregarius said:The first two bolded bits seem to fairly strongly imply someone was confused. In the third, you yourself state there was confusion.
That's not accurate. Small places names are arguably more valuable because they are often one of the few things we have that tell us a bit about how things such as the language being spoken in a region, it's 'ethnic' composition and differences between vernacular and aristocratic modes of speech among other things.MilesGregarius said:True enough for larger population centers, particularly capitals or former capitals, but hardly relevant in regard to our point of contention - whether small villages do or don't have names.
She was confused as to why I'd ask stupid questions when I know the answer.
That's not accurate. Small places names are arguably more valuable because they are often one of the few things we have that tell us a bit about how things such as the language being spoken in a region, it's 'ethnic' composition and differences between vernacular and aristocratic modes of speech among other things.
MilesGregarius said:Just as my Lahu friends would have been confused why one couldn't see both clusters of houses were the same village They would not have been confused about village names.
I was just providing an example of why names matter. You asked how that example was relevant to small villages. I provided a more relevant example.MilesGregarius said:I didn't say they were unimportant. Your discussion about name changes to capitals has no relevance in a discussion about naming conventions of small villages because the founder of a new dynasty is highly unlikely to alter the names of settlements other than the capital and, possibly, the former capital, neither of which are likely to be one of the small villages that you assert are without name in Southeast Asia.
taillesskangaru said:> Talking about Southeast Asia as if it's a common cultural region