From: Marco Cimarosti (marco.cimarosti@essetre.it)
Date: Mon Dec 15 2003 - 13:39:38 EST
Doug Ewell wrote:
> This seems very misguided, if true. Alphabetical primacy can
> hardly be considered an effective measure of the relative
> power or importance of a nation.
> [...]
> Remember that in the time frame in question, the late '30s and early
> '40s, three of the major world powers were the United States,
> the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union (Союз Советских
> Социалистических Республик). These countries, beginning with
> "U", "U", and "S" in their respective national languages,
> were unlikely to attach much significance to the relative
> alphabetical order of "Japan" and "Korea."
Right.
And what about the Chinese who, back in the 1950's, decided use digraph "zh"
for the first consonant of the country's name? It seems that they didn't
care too much that "Zhongguo" would have been last, after "Zimbabwe".
On the other hand, both "Choson" and "Han'guk" come before "Nippon" so, if
the goal is to have the Koreas listed before Japan on the score boards of
the Olympic games, it is enough to use the local names.
But, BTW, aren't score boards sorted by score rather than by name? So, an
even simpler solution is... winning more medals.
_ Marco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 15 2003 - 14:34:28 EST