Re: Pliny's "Guthalus- "Richard Wordingham"

--- In cybalist@..., x99lynx@... wrote:

> "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...> Fri Oct 4, 2002 

6:13 pm

> wrote:
>
> <<The locals don't really need a name for their river; it is very

much just

> 'the river'. (For example, I don't think I have ever _heard_ the

name of the

> river that runs through the town I live in!) However traders,...

would need a

> name, and may therefore be the effective namers.>>
>
> On the other hand, traders who "need a name" are probably not

native or local

> traders -- otherwise why would they need anything but the local

name? Thus

> you might conclude from this that the names given are by outsiders

or

> foreigners -- and therefore might be foreign names. And of course

traders

> come from different places with different languages and they may

not agreed

> on the same name. Both of these possibilities might suggest that
> standardizing a name was a product of writing. However traders,

and any others who use various waterways, would need a

> name,...What relatively static locals call the river is largely

irrelevant.

>
> Aside from traders, soldiers or missionaries, who else would need

to

> distinguish between rivers by giving them different names? River

fishermen

> would be as local as local farmers. Although transhumant herders

might find

> themselves coping with more than one river. In any case, your

point of view

> again might suggest that the river would not be named in the

language or

> dialect of the natives who actually live on the river.

By 'waterway' I meant 'road formed by water', not 'road for water',
and used the word to deliberately exclude river fisherman. You made
the point that the same tribe could have many different names for the
same river and perhaps not conceive of it as the same object at
different locations. Waterway users would tend to see a river as a
single entity, and therefore give it a single name.

Would traders necessarily be foreign? I would envisage some _local_
trade at least. Foreigners dealing in local trade could rapidly go
native. Would the traders be literate?

What has been said so far about names is entirely consistent with it
being waterway users' names that were passed on and recorded for
navigable rivers.

> <<One may even need a name to discuss fords.>>
>
> It's an interesting idea that a prominent ford might give its name

to a whole

> river among land travelers.

I was thinking more in terms of discussing where the fords were.

> <<The one exception to the principle of naming that I can think of

is

> an overwhelmingly dominant river. For that, a phrase such as 'the
> main river' might suffice. After all, in English we don't really
> have a single name for our planet! (Is it Earth? Is it Terra?)>>
>
> Try the really big bodies of water. How were the Atlantic,

Pacific, Indian,

> Artic Oceans named? More importantly, how were those names spread

and

> preserved? Historical naming suggests a very difference scenario

then the

> "true native name" idea assumed for preliterate European rivers

There was only one 'Ocean' before literacy. It didn't need a name.

Richard.