Jimmy Leach
Jimmy Leach was once editorial director for digital for The Independent.
There's always the Twitter option
There's always the Twitter option
Alone, so far as I can see, amongst the British press, The Times insists on referring to Mumbai as Bombay in all its reports on the carnage.
In the larger scheme of the atrocities, it is, of course, of no great matter, but it does seem a little odd. It is, apparently, because the paper’s readers find the use of the word Bombay 'more familiar'. Which has a whiff of Empire about it somewhere.
Nor is there much consistency. England's cricketers, while they were still there, played a Mumbai XI, which had to be referred to as such - but then they played 'in Mumbai' too. Very confusing.
Maybe the Times thinks its sports fans are more up to date than its news consumers (which would be a tad counter-intuitive), but either way, it’s been a while now since the name was changed by the Indian parliament (in 1997, in fact). Long enough for even the most traditional of the Thunderer’s readers to get used to it, surely?
And while I’m here. Anyone know of any good pubs in Kensington?
Advertisement
Page Summary
matgb : (no subject) [+2] - colinb : (no subject) [+1]
- arroger : Bombay [+0]
- nardini : Bom Bahai [+1]
- terryhamblin : Bombay [+5]
- nardini : Pubs in Kensington... [+0]
- chahteycu : (no subject) [+0]
- askanalyst : Bombay stock exchange or Mumbai stock exchange [+0]
- jaxeslat : (no subject) [+0]
- sejuveps : (no subject) [+0]
- gmuronejo : (no subject) [+0]
Syndicate
Designed by chasethestars
chasethestars
Comments
I think the whole thing is a daft fuss anyway, we haven't started calling Koln Koln yet, officially, we still use the French name for a German city. If one group of locals call it Bombay, another call it Mumbai, what does it really matter which we use as long as everyone knows?
But as you say, it's not that big a deal. And if any English-speaker calls Paris 'Paree', then that is annoying...
http://is.gd/9rul
How about a "Media watch" on this site where we can aggregate the naffness that is inflicted on us on a daily basis? Something good might come of it - like the media ensuring that instant reportage is only ever trusted to savvy writers.
As for Mumbai and Bombay business, it all strikes me of the Slow transition by which the Palestinian west bank turned into the West Bank Gaza to the Israeli west bank, I may well be wrong, but I was sure confused growing up during that transition period.
The government tried to change it for the name of an obscure deity. the real name is Bombay, meaning 'good bay' in portuguese.
Has it become a bad bay?
I think it will revert to its real name someday
Now, we have to look at how the next name, Mumbai, came into being.
I rather like the reason usually given that the name came about as a result of a certain lady, a religiously inclined lady by the name of Mumba, came to Bombay and was allowed by the English to build a temple called the Mumbadevi temple. Of course, this could all be a load of tosh, but I rather like the idea of Mrs Mumba donating her name to such a cause.
Needless to say the simple explanation is never enough, is it. This then spawned an altogether more fanciful explanation for the temple to Mumbadevi: "he temple is about six centuries old: Mumbaraka, a sadistic giant who frequently plundered the place at the time. Terrorized by these unwelcome visits, the locals pleaded with the god Brahma, Creator of all things to protect them. Brahma then "pulled out of his own body", an eight armed goddess who vanquished Mumbaraka. Brought to his knees, Mumbaraka implored the goddess to adopt his name and built a temple in her honour. She still stands there, an orange faced goddess on an altar strewn with marigolds: devotees believe that those who seek her divine favour are never disappointed."
A long one, eh?
Anyway, to widdle onto Occam's Razor for a while longer,Mumbai comes from the desire to shed the English interpretation of the Portuguese name for a city that was once an area of temples that were destroyed by muslim invaders, who called it "Al Omanis". The Portuguese couldn't spell that so they called in Bom Bahai. Etcetera.
I blame The Times.
Or just an edit button?
You mean that sort of thing, do you?
There is a good argument for keeping proper nouns intact across language divides, but a very poor argument for sticking only to the anglicised versions of those names.
Or, to put it another way, my name stays my name wherever I may be in the world. Isn't that right, terenzio?
Is it acceptable or desirable in these days to change the name of somewhere or someone to suit the needs of people to feel insular and cut-off from neighbouring groups?
If you were to ever drive here, you would be sorely disappointed to find that there are absolutely no road signs, for example, to point your way to "Florence". The reason for this 'omission' is very simple. It is because there is no place here called "Florence". It is called Firenza. It matters not a whit that your old school atlas called it "Florence" - it was (and still is) called Firenza.
My point was that the changing of names into other languages is neither clever nor desirable in this modern age that we live in.
Bombay is not an Anglicisation of the name Mumbai. Mumbai is a brand new name. It does not translate into English in any way other than "Mumbai". Rather as Stalingrad no longer exists, Neither does "Bombay". It is a new name - it is the correct name. It is re-named. It is Mumbai. The name Bombay no longer exists. It is a dead name. Deceased. Departed. No longer with us. It is a defunct name. End.
http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/re
They all beat the temple of Mumbadevi hands down for a swift half, in my humble opinion, that is...
emir
regards
indian-share-tips.com