Esperanto names of places are usually a compromise between the spelling and the pronunciation. Presumably this makes it a little more recognizable to someone who is familiar with the spelling but perhaps not the pronunciation. Iovao (recommended by Bertilo Wennergren in his list of names of countries and their regions) is easier to relate visually to Iowa than Ajovo. Similarly - Cxikago and not Sxikago, for "Chicago".

This is why Esperanto names of places are frequently relatively easily guessed, you develop a sense for it with time.

erinja:Esperanto names of places are usually a compromise between the spelling and the pronunciation. Presumably this makes it a little more recognizable to someone who is familiar with the spelling but perhaps not the pronunciation. Iovao (recommended by Bertilo Wennergren in his list of names of countries and their regions) is easier to relate visually to Iowa than Ajovo. Similarly - Cxikago and not Sxikago, for "Chicago".

This is why Esperanto names of places are frequently relatively easily guessed, you develop a sense for it with time.

I understand the process being for large, well-known cities (Chicago, Paris etc.) but for such places as Iowa and Dayton, etc. well, as I said, I am a proponent of the "Korean solution."

By the way, where is this list of Bertilo's that thee refers to above? I've looked in PMEG and googled every permutation of "bertilo" and "placename" I can think of and nothing comes up.

orthohawk:where is this list of Bertilo's that thee refers to above?

If you type in the search field of Google Iovao site:bertilow.com, you get this. Scroll down to "Usono" and there you'll find "Iovao". It's in the "Landoj kaj lingvoj de la mondo" --> "Notoj pri regionoj"

orthohawk:I understand the process being for large, well-known cities (Chicago, Paris etc.) but for such places as Iowa and Dayton, etc. well, as I said, I am a proponent of the "Korean solution."

I don't know what you mean by that. Are you implying that there is a large number of Iowa Esperantists and they are all voting for "Ajovo", or that you happen to be from Iowa, and therefore your vote of one person wins?

Are you therefore in favor of calling Ohio, "Ohajo" rather than "Ohio" in Esperanto?

Like I said, it's a compromise between spelling and pronunciation. We don't go 100% for the spelling side, nor do we go 100% to the pronunciation side. In the case of Jakarta, there would only be one letter's difference in either case, ĝ versus j, so there's not a lot of room for compromise. That's not an issue with most place names, however; most of them have more than a single choice to be made in the process of converting the name.

erinja:

orthohawk:I understand the process being for large, well-known cities (Chicago, Paris etc.) but for such places as Iowa and Dayton, etc. well, as I said, I am a proponent of the "Korean solution."

I don't know what you mean by that. Are you implying that there is a large number of Iowa Esperantists and they are all voting for "Ajovo", or that you happen to be from Iowa, and therefore your vote of one person wins?

Well, IF I were the only esperantist in Iowa, then yeah, my vote would win . As things stand, though, we haven't all gotten together yet, but if that's how the vote goes why not? Why do Korean esperantists get the right to determine their own name for themselves and Iowan esperantists don't?

erinja:Are you therefore in favor of calling Ohio, "Ohajo" rather than "Ohio" in Esperanto?

Personally, I'd say yes; however, I no longer have a horse in that particular race. But, if that's what Ohioan Esperantists want, then that's how it should be "esperantized."

With all due respect to Bertilo (and everyone else who's better at Esperanting than me), that list of place names seems rather inconsistent in its derivations. For example, "Norda Dakoto" and "Nord-Karolino" are right next to one another in the list. Why hyphenate one and not the other? It's not as though doubled letters are forbidden in Esperanto. Words like "mallonga" and "ekkrii" come to mind, and "finno" has the doubling in the root itself.

For that matter, why "Dakoto", but "Indianao" and "Iovao"? Wouldn't "Dakotao" better fit this pattern? (Personally, I always liked "Indianio" better than "Indianao" anyway, and it seems Vikipedio eventually came to agree with me, for whatever that may be worth.)

While I agree that Esperantizing a name must be a compromise, and Iowa's Esperantigo should probably start with "I" instead of "Aj" to be visually familiar, I start to have problems with just tacking an "-o" on the end, and turning a vowel that is barely even a schwa in the original into the primary stress of the word.

orthohawk:Well, IF I were the only esperantist in Iowa, then yeah, my vote would win . As things stand, though, we haven't all gotten together yet, but if that's how the vote goes why not? Why do Korean esperantists get the right to determine their own name for themselves and Iowan esperantists don't?

No one says they don't. But I haven't heard of such a vote taking place, so my choice of word, at this point, is just as valid as anyone's, so I feel comfortable sticking with PIV.

Breto:With all due respect to Bertilo (and everyone else who's better at Esperanting than me), that list of place names seems rather inconsistent in its derivations. For example, "Norda Dakoto" and "Nord-Karolino" are right next to one another in the list. Why hyphenate one and not the other? It's not as though doubled letters are forbidden in Esperanto. Words like "mallonga" and "ekkrii" come to mind, and "finno" has the doubling in the root itself.

For that matter, why "Dakoto", but "Indianao" and "Iovao"? Wouldn't "Dakotao" better fit this pattern? (Personally, I always liked "Indianio" better than "Indianao" anyway, and it seems Vikipedio eventually came to agree with me, for whatever that may be worth.)

These things will become obvious to you as you gain experience, but ease of pronunciation is taken into account (the d-D in a proposed "nord-dakoto" is not so easy to pronounce). However, "Nord-Dakoto" and "Norda Karolino" would be considered equally valid. Grammtically those are not really considered different than "Norda Dakoto" and "Nord-Karolino", so you could use them interchangeably without feeling that you are making some kind of big statement on word choice. Similarly, though both are equally correct and valid, most people would go with "receptolibro" over "recept-libro", simply because the central cluster is easier to pronounce if you include that optional -o.

For the record -- Esperanto avoids double letters in roots. It is sometimes unavoidable when putting a prefix on a word, you can't just say "never use 'mal' with a word that starts in L". But it was done in the root "finn/o" in order to avoid crossing over with "fin/o" ( "end" ). This is why some people avoid calling India "Barato", because of crossover with "barato", someone who is barred or blocked. These people add an h, "Bharato", to avoid that combination, but that solution adds other problems.

We avoid making choices that have double meanings, though this is sometimes unavoidable. This is why we have "indianao", because "indiano" is already taken (it means "American Indian" ). If "dakoto" was already a word with a different meaning, I would assume the states would be "dakotao" instead. With Iowa, you could make an argument for "Iovo" as the esperantized form. That makes it look like a form of "Jove", it is more obviously "Iowa" when you keep the "a". If it had been me choosing the name, I likely would have gone with "Iovo" since it makes it easier to name the people and it maintains its recognizability, but the ship has sailed on that one.

But bottom line -- "Iovao" is widespread in Esperanto at this point. It would take a significant push and a lot of people unifying around a specific alternative to change the widespread usage. What we are called is sometimes chosen for us before we learned the language, and if you don't like it and want to change it, you need a pretty significant population of speakers to get behind your proposed change, and be pretty vocal about it to get others to use your word.

One or two or ten people probably aren't going to be a big enough population to push a change forward. Korea did it, India did it. I don't know exactly who has a large and unified enough population and a strong enough desire to change what they are called, but somehow I doubt that Iowa is that "someone".

The Esperanto name of Iowa is quite low on my list of things to worry about, so I'm sticking with Iovao until the time when an alternative becomes the widespread preference.

erinja:But bottom line -- "Iovao" is widespread in Esperanto at this point.

That's really the winning argument in the end, I think. There are any number of ways Esperanto could theoretically change "for the better" (whatever that might mean), but in the end, the language is successful because it is used, and the words that are known and used are the right ones to use, regardless of how much sense they do or don't make; they have become the words which are understood. People know what "Iovao" means, but not so much "Ajovo". Any debate on the subject might make a fine intellectual exercise, but is unlikely to change anything.

Breto:

erinja:But bottom line -- "Iovao" is widespread in Esperanto at this point.

That's really the winning argument in the end, I think. There are any number of ways Esperanto could theoretically change "for the better" (whatever that might mean), but in the end, the language is successful because it is used, and the words that are known and used are the right ones to use, regardless of how much sense they do or don't make; they have become the words which are understood. People know what "Iovao" means, but not so much "Ajovo". Any debate on the subject might make a fine intellectual exercise, but is unlikely to change anything.

oh, heck, people barely know what "Iowa" means! lol.

erinja:It would take a significant push and a lot of people unifying around a specific alternative to change the widespread usage. What we are called is sometimes chosen for us before we learned the language, and if you don't like it and want to change it, you need a pretty significant population of speakers to get behind your proposed change, and be pretty vocal about it to get others to use your word.

One or two or ten people probably aren't going to be a big enough population to push a change forward. Korea did it, India did it. I don't know exactly who has a large and unified enough population and a strong enough desire to change what they are called, but somehow I doubt that Iowa is that "someone".

So, in other words, since there are so few of us, compared to Koreans and Indians, it sucks to be us, huh? nice attitude from such an inclusive, tolerant, liberal community.

In that case, someone really needs to get with those upstart citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and tell them that just plain "Macedonia" isn't acceptable, because, well, they're outnumbered, so that trumps any right of self-determination they may think they have. At least that seems to be how it works anymore, right?

erinja:The Esperanto name of Iowa is quite low on my list of things to worry about, so I'm sticking with Iovao until the time when an alternative becomes the widespread preference.

Well, that's nice for thee, but it DOES just happen to be rather high on our list, so I guess we better get to work.

Demetrio
Ajovurbo, Ajovo, Usono