Michael:
> it seems to me
> if a word has a meaning
> especially a primary meaning
> whatever the language & no matter how mistaken the derivation or
meaning is
> then it is not wrong but right to use that word in that universally
> recognized sense in that language
Is there not also some consideration of courtesy (as I think you have
alluded to already in this thread) to call a country by the name "it"
chooses for "itself"?
The official name I find in various encyclopaedias is "Koninkrijk der
Nederlanden" which to my Deutsch, at least (not Dutch), looks like a
plural: "Netherlands".
An odd exception to this direct-as-possible-translation rule is Cote
d'Ivoire, the government of which have officially asked to be
translated into English as, well ... "Cote d'Ivoire".
Reminds me of a Richard Feynman story.
Feynman once met Murray Gell-Mann (who is a linguist as well as a
physicist) in the corridor outside his office.
"Murray," said Feynman, "haven't seen you for a while. Have you been
away?"
"Yes," said Gell-Mann. "I've been to ..." and he here emitted a word
that sounded to Feynman like "MOHNG-RRRHay-al".
"Where?" asked Feynman.
"MOHNG-RRRHay-al," repeated Gell-Mann, slowly and clearly.
After a bit more to-ing and fro-ing, they established that Gell-Mann
had been to Montreal, but was using the Quebecois pronunciation.
"Tell me, Murray," said Feynman, putting his arm around Gell-Mann's
shoulders. "As a linguist, don't you feel that the primary purpose of
language is *communication*?"
I don't know what the moral of the story is; I just like to tell it.
Grant