Mumbai/Bombay?
One caller to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ complained that in the coverage of the bombs in India, the name Mumbai was used without an explanation that it was formerly known as Bombay.
There is no ´óÏó´«Ã½ rule about using Mumbai, just guidelines. It is up to each individual programme to decide what to say. Most use 'Mumbai' and nothing else; a few use 'Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay'. The thinking is the city has (some time ago) and Mumbai is now well known to most, if not all, the audience.
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'Clock News
Comments
I feel that Mumbai, like Kolkata, is close enough to its former Anglicized name, to be easily recognizable after the years which have elapsed since the change. The city which needs a reminder is Chennai, for it bears no resemblance to its former name--Madras.
I actually had a conversation about much the same thing in the car, while listening to the radio. I was aware that it was the new name for Bombay, my wife wasn't.
I think the problem is is that the shift to using a new name tends to happen gradually so if you've not heard the name mentioned much during the shift period, you might not know it's changed. For example, I'd not heard about the Pretoria one, but Beijing/Peking is one I think most people are aware of.
It certainly helps when the new name sounds like the old one (Mumbai/Bombay; Beijing/Peking) rather than being completely different (Tshwane/Pretoria; St Petersburg/Leningrad).
But here of course you're looking at two different reasons for the change: the first is because we're now trying to pronounce it as per that country's preference, rather than going the 'old colonial' route of if you want to pronounce it your way, that's up to you. But we're British dammit and we'll do things our way; and the second one is obviously where the name has actually changed.
Having family from that part of the world, including from around the areas bombed, and having been born in the UK, I too had this same discussion this morning. I think it really does vary as to whom you ask - I know people from Mumbai/Bombay who call the city by both names, and I know people in the UK who will only call it by the new name or the old one, depending on their point of view. The debate is very similar to the 'correct' name to call the Dutch football team - Holland or the Netherlands (see Sports Editors blog).
As a whole, as long as the public are kept informed (eg "Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay") at the start of the article, then either can be used. There will come a point however when Mumbai alone will have to be used.
Sorry, I was unaware of the change in name.
Having been in ignorance since the news broke I'm not sure if how important knowing it used to be called Bombay is?
I knew (guessed) Mumbai was in India from the TV footage. Thanks to the news map I now know where it is. I also know it's a financial centre. Otherwise I assumed it was a ‘new’ city, a product of the burgeoning economy.
More important for me was that terrorism had occurred again in India, that many had been affected and I wanted to know who the most likely perpetrators were likely to be.
It may be more important to tell people that the name has changed on the TV news.
Interestingly all the morning's newspapers seem to have opted for just Mumbai - with the exception of The Times, which seems to still call it Bombay and seemingly refuses to acknowledge the new name at all!
Well, why not include the Taleban on the ´óÏó´«Ã½? You already include rabid America-hating leftists who openly support and rationalize the destruction of America and the west. And many Have-Your-Say debates are framed so as to solicit anti-American comments. Including the Taleban as just another legitimate point of view would be no change for the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
Any one who keeps abreast of general news around the world should be aware of the name change, Bombay to Mumbai, Calculla to Kolkata, Poona to Pune, Madras to Chennai, Salisbury to Harare, Leningrad to St. Petersburg, and many more.
The news channels ought to correctly state the names as named by the country. We still see people talking about Czechoslovakia (Czech & Slovak Republics), Rhodesian (Zimbabwe) and to me it is sheer ignorance or not wanting to accept the changing times.
Dear Sir,
I keep up with the news mainly via this bbc website (which is excellent). I live in Spain. I did have some knowledge that India has been in the process of changing some of the names of their cities.
However, I could only guess that Mumbai is the city formally known in India as Bombay. Mainly as the names are similar, and someone told me that some bombs had gone off in Bombay (it is still called Bombay in Spain).
I feel that it is arrogant beyond credibility that the writer of this blog should suggest that "Mumbai is known to most if not all the audience". A quite mind boggling assumption, which truely questions the integrity of the writer... if not the ´óÏó´«Ã½ itself.
I think you will find that many countries call people or places what ever they feel like... London for example in Spain is Londres... Even the British Consulate in Bilbao has pictures of the Royal Family on the walls with their names underneath...
Isabel... Felipe.. Carlos... Eduardo.. Andres... Guillermo and (er) Harry! You can work out which is which.
As you can see, the British Consul does not spell the name of our own Monarch as we do in Reino Unido (Britain).
So what is the problem calling Mumbai, Bombay? That is how it is known in Britain, and the decision to not explain to normal people about the change when such an important and tragic news story in on the front page, is poor to say the least.
Cambodia - Kampouchea - Cambodia again... I do not understand the problem of maintaining constistancy in geographical names in English, rather than changing with the wind according to who is the government of the day in any particular place.
Not only that, but on occasion, following the whims of certain reigemes, can lend credibility to obnoxious despots, such as Pol Pot, or Robert Mugarbe.
If they choose to change the name of Bagdad? It really does start to get silly. Let the locals do what they wish, but this is the British Broadcasting Corperation... spare a thought for the average person, who may not have their finger on the pulse of every name change in every country in the world, former colony or otherwise.
Thanks for reading
Peta Ward
'Local Pronunciation' is certainly a tricky road to go down.
There's an old example: newsreaders who try to say 'Paris' in the French style, but they never say Munchen instead of Munich...
I agree with Keith Fairbrother, European places are seldom pronounced in the local language by the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
Either do one thing or the other.
The way you have it just now smacks of "right on-ness" at worst.
Do we even have to change our language now to be politically correct, what utter nonsense, Bombay is and always will be Bombay when using English , and why Beijing? We don't use the local pronunciation for Paris, Muenchen, or Wien and why the sudden change in the pronunciation of Basle? Lets stop bastardising the English language.
What I find most confusing is that an Indian gentlemen introduced himself to me, just a week ago, as being "from Bombay". If an Indian national considers it right to use that word, then who should complain?
My impression, at least whenever I've visited India or been involved in a multi-lingual conversation with Indians, is that the place is Bombay if you're talking English and Mumbai if you're talking Hindi, rather as, if you're talking to a Russian, Moscow is the capital of Russia while Moskva is the capital of Rossiya. I don't quite see the difference between me talking about Bombay and Praveen talking about 'Saint Petersburg' rather than Sankt Pieterborg, which is what it is in Russian; using the English name for the city when you're talking about it in English is clearly different from referring to it by a previous name, and calling it Leningrad.
How, out of interest, does the ´óÏó´«Ã½ determine such matters? Why's it Mumbai and not Bombay while the capital of the former Yugoslavia is Belgrade and not Beograd?
Indians were ruled by the Britishers for 250 years, I rather say its still dependent on what the English media says, it thinks English and talks English. The educated masses are proud of India, Bombay, English instead of Bharat, Mumbai, Hindi...this should clearly indicate why a name is important, there are other things associated with it.
´óÏó´«Ã½ needs to mention the current name, irrespective of what people understand it as, adding that Mumbai is now called by its original name is optional. After all what is news for, not what people understand or want to hear, but to get their facts right.
I am sure this comment will not get posted, but damn it.
Ratzinger or Pope Benedict?
How come no one fights over whether the media should attached a note to reports on Pope Benedict with the clause "formally known as Ratzinger" or "A.K.A Ratzinger,"?
There is no need to explain if Mumbai was ever know as Bombay, if someone does not know, to bad, the role of popular media is to enlighten, not to (re)educate. People who are unaware may want to go back to school instead.
A more apposite question than 'Ratzinger or Pope Benedict', given that we're discussing the names of places rather than people, might be why we don't generally refer to Pope Benedict as having been born in Bayern rather than Bavaria and why few people, other than Poles, refer to his predecessor's birthplace as Polska.
I feel more comfortable when I hear Bombay, because that's how I learned the name. However, if the ENGLISH NAME has changed, there's nothing I can do about it. We can't call Zimbabwe Rhodesia or New York New Amsterdam for that matter.
Some commenters are missing the point, in that they have percieved this Bombay/Mumbai debate as one about English vs. Local language. Take Crete (present English name). Calling it Kriti (present Greek name) would be silly until some day it were to become established as the only acceptable English name. Calling it Candia (old English name), on the other hand, would be as wrong as saying Bombay, however comfortable or convenient to some.
unless i've gotten it wrong... and in fact the INDIAN LANGUAGE (forgive my ignorance, as i don't know what they speak in bombay) name has changed, and the ENGLISH LANGUAGE name has remained Bombay, inwhich case you should call it Bombay just like you say Moscow instead of Moskva and Limassol instead of Lemesos (Regardless of the fact that 10 years ago, all signs in cyprus were changed so that they feature a transliterated greek name rather than the english version e.g. nicosia)
As a UK citizen based in the Netherlands I was surprised recently, when on a business trip to Singapore, to discover that Burma is now called Myanmar and has been for a number of years. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ continues to call it Burma however and I just wonder how that plays with the desire to keep up with linguistic-geographical developments as with Mumbai/Bombay.
I am of Indian origin, and "Bombay" it has been and it shall be, as far as I am concerned. The British gave the city its true identity as Bombay and it is silly to start calling it a different name just because some local politician wanted to gain a few more votes by changing the name to "Mumbai" and pandering to narrow-minded chauvinists. Go on, be brave, call it "Bombay" and get on with it! No need to be politically correct. There is enough trouble in the world already!!
It WAS called Bombay. It is NOW called Mumbai. This is not a question of political correctness. Many Indians may still call the city Bombay, just as I sometimes call a Snickers a Marathon, but it has changed.
The ENGLISH LANGUAGE name has changed too. It is called Mumbai.
What's in a name?, I hear you cry. Surely, Mumbai and Bombay are one and the same in terms of the geographical area. However, if I were to refer to Mumbai as Bombay here in the UK, no one would bat an eyelid. But having been there I know how sensitive an issue it is to the Mumbaikar (resident of Mumbai).
Saibal
Peta Ward and several others posters seem to be confusing a name change, with variations in names in local languages. i.e london and londres are not two different names, simply two different linguistic forms of the same name. Ditto for Wien/Vienna etc. In the case of Mumbai, it is a complete name change. The old colonial name being Bom (Portuguese for good) and Bay (English). The new name is from the goddess Mumba. There is a preference for indigenous names as opposed to old colonial names that is to be promoted. The posters simply need to learn to update with the times.
I was born in Bombay and having spent 25 years in this amazing city, it will always be "Bombay" for me. When I speak English I call the city "Bombay" , however, this changes when I speak other Indian languages like Hindi, Marathi or Konkani in which case I would call the city "Bambai" , "Mumbai" or "Bomoi" respectively.
The name change doesn't mean a thing to the millions of Bombayites; it was just a gimmick by local politicians who have absolutley no knowledge of or respect for history. Just to get facts straight - the name Bombay is of Portuguese and not British origin as many people assume. The Portuguese called the city "Bom Baia" which means "Good Bay". This was later anglicized to "Bombay" by the British when they got control of the city.
Personally, I think the issue we need to address is not what to call the city, but how to tackle terrorism, in most cases state sponsored - Pakistan, US , China among many others.
Why not take a lead on this ´óÏó´«Ã½?
Instead of some leftwing, bedwetting, tree hugging, hippie, consultative approach rubbish.
The fact is the name has changed. Have a news article to report the name change and be done with it. Anyone who can't/won't keep up gets left behind.
Any one who misses the original report can find it on a quick search of the internet.
Call it Mumbai and have done with it. And credit the 'average person on the street' with the intelligence they are due.