Luhansk vs Lugansk

[Moose-tache]

[preface: I realize this is a political post, but I am primarily interested in the linguistic side of this topic, thus I put it in L&L]

In the early days of the current conflict, you could see both English spellings, but Luhansk is pretty much universal now in English media. I think when people insist on Luhansk, they believe they are taking a stand for Ukrainian sovereignty by using the "correct" version of the name. But I believe we should be using Lugansk, and I'll explain why.

In America, we're used to thinking of foreign countries as homogeneous nation-states. Ukraine is an excellent antidote to this thinking, as there is a complex relationship between Russian and Ukrainian nationalities, and Russian and Ukrainian languages. Many people identify as Ukrainian but speak Russian as their native language. So it's not as clear as "If you believe in Ukraine, the proper name is Luhansk." Two thirds of the people of Lugansk Oblast natively speak Russian, and in the separatist-controlled area and the city of Lugansk itself, the figure is over eighty percent. So Lugansk is what the people who actually live there primarily call their home. To insist on Luhansk does two things. First, it equates speaking Russian with supporting Russian invasion, i.e. eradicating the possibility of being nationally Ukrainian and linguistically Russian, i.e. a tacit support of non-violent ethnic cleansing (this is bad in its own right, but will become a major problem if Ukraine successfully repatriates these areas and has to deal with Russian-speaking Ukrainians in large numbers). Second, it makes no sense linguistically and sets a precident that puts our cultural ignorance on full display. We don't insist on calling Montreal "Mount Royal" when we express support for Canadian political unity, nor do campaigners against Scottish independence insist on pronouncing a hard G in Edinburgh, presumably because we have an understanding of linguistic nuance that doesn't apply to inscrutible Slavic peoples.

I get that Luhansk makes sense in some contexts (e.g. "Kiev redraws border of Luhansk Oblast" or something), but as a general descriptor, insisting on it doesn't help anyone's sovereignty, and encourages ignorance among English language readers. If you think we should be using Luhansk when we talk about this place, let me know your reasoning.

[Linguoboy]

How about we stick to "Lugansk" for Луганськ when we switch to "Brummagem" for "Birmingham"?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I can think of a great many more things about the present situation that I find rather more pressing.

[zompist]

Sometimes using one name rather than another is a political statement. So, hey, go ahead and make your statement. If it requires half a page of text to explain, though... good luck with that.

The idea that English speakers choose place names with careful political and linguistic tact seems, well, unsupported. And then, what do you do when the facts on the ground change? How many Basque speakers do there need to be in Bilbao before you start calling it Bilbo?

[Ares Land]

How about we stick to "Lugansk" for Луганськ when we switch to "Brummagem" for "Birmingham"?

Completely off topic but I'd prefer using Brummagem!

[Moose-tache]

How about we stick to "Lugansk" for Луганськ when we switch to "Brummagem" for "Birmingham"?

For anyone who doesn't get linguoboy's joke, he's pointing out how absurd it is to call the city Luhansk. No one in Birmingham calls it Brummagem, so it would be weird to use that name simply out of some misguided idea of political purity. Meanwhile Lugansk patterns with Birmingham as the actual placename is use, so if we call Birmingham Birmingham, we should call Lugansk Lugansk. Couldn't have put it better myself, linguoboy, thank you.

[Moose-tache]

Sometimes using one name rather than another is a political statement. So, hey, go ahead and make your statement. If it requires half a page of text to explain, though... good luck with that.

What? I think you have it backwards. The political statement is calling the city Luhansk. You might as well call it a political statement to call Cornwall "Cornwall" and not Kernow. It's not, and you know that.

Honestly, I am surprised the unanymous concensus is that we should impose foreign names on a civilian population because we have a beef with people in another country that speaks the same language. It's really baffling to me how many brain cells the internet has shed since February.

[zompist]

Sometimes using one name rather than another is a political statement. So, hey, go ahead and make your statement. If it requires half a page of text to explain, though... good luck with that.

What? I think you have it backwards. The political statement is calling the city Luhansk.

Are you really going with "other people's views are political, mine are merely rational"? Not only is your transliteration political, you argued for it based on political reasons. You even said you were making a "political post".

Names are a political statement-- including the anodyne position that we should use whatever names Google Maps does, or the Associated Press, or the consensus of English-speaking media (if any).

The problem with your preferred English spelling is that its politics are not as clear as you think, and the message you think you're communicating is not what other people will hear.

1. Luhansk = "let's use the Ukrainian for a city in Ukraine"
2. Lugansk = "let's use the Russian for a city that is rightfully Russian"
3. Lugansk = "let's use the Russian to communicate that it's 'nationally Ukrainian and linguistically Russian'"

In this thread you've explained that you mean (3) not (2)-- fine. But apparently you believe that other people must follow every gospel truth you utter, lest they be deemed low in "brain cells." What if people actually follow your example in other places? They'll be taken as following position (2). What should your disciples do? Explain your political position each time the word comes up? Explain that they are Mooseists and the word of Moose is not to be denied?

You might as well call it a political statement to call Cornwall "Cornwall" and not Kernow. It's not, and you know that.

No, I don't know that, because it's absurd. Of course calling it Cornwall is political. It's boring consensus politics, but it's a political statement-- i.e. that Cornish nationalism is unimportant.

Honestly, I am surprised the unanymous concensus is that we should impose foreign names on a civilian population because we have a beef with people in another country that speaks the same language.

You are the only one "imposing names"-- or rather attempting to.

[Linguoboy]

Honestly, I am surprised the unanymous concensus is that we should impose foreign names on a civilian population because we have a beef with people in another country that speaks the same language.

So the civilian population of Lugansk/Luhansk is changing their pronunciation of the name based on the usage in foreign-language media? I had no idea they were both simultaneously so worldly and so impressionable.

[Travis B.]

Sorry to say this, Moose-tache, but exonyms aren't inherently evil, unlike what some have come to believe.

[Kuchigakatai]

Sorry to say this, Moose-tache, but exonyms aren't inherently evil, unlike what some have come to believe.

idk, Travis B. The RAE's eternal campaign to call Aachen "Aquisgrán" in Spanish when everyone on the ground, in Spain or otherwise, calls it "Aachen" seems pretty evil to me.

[Travis B.]

Sorry to say this, Moose-tache, but exonyms aren't inherently evil, unlike what some have come to believe.

idk, Travis B. The RAE's eternal campaign to call Aachen "Aquisgrán" in Spanish when everyone on the ground, in Spain or otherwise, calls it "Aachen" seems pretty evil to me.

Well that is not a matter of exonyms being inherently evil unto itself, but rather a matter of prescriptivism being evil.

[Linguoboy]

Sorry to say this, Moose-tache, but exonyms aren't inherently evil, unlike what some have come to believe.

idk, Travis B. The RAE's eternal campaign to call Aachen "Aquisgrán" in Spanish when everyone on the ground, in Spain or otherwise, calls it "Aachen" seems pretty evil to me.

Would they be mollified if we all agreed to spell it "Ajen"?

I'm actually quite fond of exonyms. I get a kick out of every time I write "Efrog Newydd" or "els Països Baixos". I understand why we no longer use German exonyms except in very few cases (e.g. Venedig) but I wish it were otherwise.

[Travis B.]

The problem with endonyms is inevitably many of them translate simply as "the people" or "the people-ish".

[Linguoboy]

The problem with endonyms is inevitably many of them translate simply as "the people" or "the people-ish".

How is that a "problem" exactly?

[Richard W]

The problem with endonyms is inevitably many of them translate simply as "the people" or "the people-ish".

How is that a "problem" exactly?

It rather implies that others aren't human.

[Travis B.]

The problem with endonyms is inevitably many of them translate simply as "the people" or "the people-ish".

How is that a "problem" exactly?

It rather implies that others aren't human.

Exactly.

[anteallach]

Sorry to say this, Moose-tache, but exonyms aren't inherently evil, unlike what some have come to believe.

idk, Travis B. The RAE's eternal campaign to call Aachen "Aquisgrán" in Spanish when everyone on the ground, in Spain or otherwise, calls it "Aachen" seems pretty evil to me.

As I think I've said before, I was once on a train through Aachen with multilingual announcements, and the English announcements insisted on calling it Aix-la-Chapelle. There are still a few cases where English speakers routinely use a French name for a non-French-speaking city (Bruges is a good example) but not that one.

[Ketsuban]

Given that that's a train in Aachen itself how confident are you the English-language announcement was for the benefit of native English speakers and not (for example) speakers of another language who have expectations about the small quantity of English they do understand? Wikipedia says the name Aix-la-Chapelle is "traditional English", which aside from the Twitter joke about British English being "English (Traditional)" and American English being "English (Simplified)" I wouldn't be surprised to learn means "English as sometimes practiced in non-English-speaking countries because there isn't a groundswell of native English speakers to keep it up-to-date". Casually searching the BBC news website for "Aachen" gets me stories in and relating to Aachen, but searching for "Aix-la-Chapelle" gets me nothing relevant (e.g. low-Levenshtein-distance results for stories which contain the word "chapel") so I feel reasonably confident saying that at least in the UK (where I am) the consensus exonym is "Aachen".

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I would usually only call it Aix-la-Chapelle in English in some historical contexts.