Evolution of place-names

[ulvesang]

Even though nations and peoples may disappear and transition with time, oftentimes their names remain-- if even in an archaic, etymological reference. However, we sometimes take this for granted. Could these areas now so-labelled be legitimately referred to using the "old" name?

• The place-name "Vietnam" is derived from the Viet peoples, who

Comments

[kali_kali]

No, they don't speak Gothic-- but Latvians don't speak Liivi anymore (or at least most of them), either..

That's because Latvians never spoke Liivi to begin with. The Liivi are a separate ethnic group, related to the Finns and Estonians, who live along the Baltic coast in parts of Latvia. Latvians are Balts related to the Lithuanians. The language of the Liivi has been on the decline, but measures are in place to keep it alive and the Liivi are a protected minority in Latvia.

[kali_kali]

Race is a component of ethnicity, but it is not ethnicity in of itself. Ethnicity comprises race, religion, language, culture (though culture, religion and language can be taken on by others), common historical background, common regional origin and so on.

[ulvesang]

A long time ago my ancestors came from Africa... but I don't think Africa really existed back then. It might've still been Pangaea.

[kali_kali]

That is before recorded history. Now you're just being difficult.

Your friends mentioned above likely immigrated to Scotland sometime in the last five hundred years, well within recorded history. Being as they have Muslim names, rather than Scottish names, indicates also that their families are probably more recent immigrants - in the last two or three generations - though it is possible that they have been there longer and just adopted Islam as their religion.

Unless way back when there was a Celtic tribe of dark-skinned Muslims that I'm not aware of. But as far as I'm aware, the Celtic tribes of Scotland were relatively light-skinned pagans, who were then later converted to Christianity.

[ulvesang]

That is before recorded history. Now you're just being difficult.

Well, social anthropology is a bugger, isn't it? ;)

No one stays in the same place forever. Except for maybe New Guineans...

Besides, that's going to make some huge dents in their gene pool... god, reminds me of the Shetland Islands... *shudder*

[kjell_bjarne]

ummm... not even close.
Pangaea was theoretically formed 225 million years ago, while the first humans came, at the very earliest, 4 million years ago.
This is all, of course, assuming that the theory of plate tectonics is correct.

[ulvesang]

You don't believe in human evolution, do you?

[kjell_bjarne]

first, human's ancestors aren't considered to be the primordial soup (which existed way before pangeae. The Australopithecus, the earliest homonids that have been discovered, are considered generally as our earliest descendants.
second, this is getting rather pointless and off topic. I no longer care.

[ulvesang]

I stopped caring long ago.

I think our debate about my apparent idiocy at incorrectly using the term Pangaea to poke fun brought this on, and you dropped some Impressive Numbers.

[kjell_bjarne]

the Navajo speak Navajo, and are techincally American citizens. But that doesn't make them culturally American. I wouldn't say Americans speak Navajo, I would say the Navajo speak Navajo. And a couple other students at NAU, where Navajo is taught, but that's rather irrelevant.

[ulvesang]

Chileans are also American citizens. They are citizens of a country in America, after all.

[kjell_bjarne]

you're disregarding my point. We both know that in saying "American", I meant a person from the United States.

[ulvesang]

No; that is the exact point I am trying to communicate.

Chileans ARE Americans. They are NOT United Statesians.

[zubird]

my god, is this really necessary?

[kjell_bjarne]

no, not really.

[kjell_bjarne]

I wasn't telling you you were wrongabout chileans.
What I was saying was that chileans had very little to do with my analogy, and that in saying "America", I only meant to include the United States, because "United Statesian" is not in use.