Owing to the number of languages and alphabets in use in the Indian empire, the orthography of its geographic names has for a long time been in controversy. As we see from the "British System," the Royal Geographical Society has decided to spell Indian names in accordance with "Hunters' Imperial Gazetteer of India," a decision which, in view of the fact that the spelling in the Gazetteer is not always in harmony with the adopted rules, is to be regretted. But we can at the same time understand the difficulties of the situation, and appreciate the strong love of the British for old forms and long usage. The differences between the system and the Gazetteer are, however, not radical, since the continental vowel system is followed; still, it would be just as easy to write Kalkutta, Kutch, etc., for Calcutta, Cutch, etc., as it is to write Korea for Corea, and thus be consistent with the rules.
Geographic names in Malay and its branches we know mainly through Dutch, British and Spanish surveyors, and their status may be judged from the prefatory remarks in Maxwell's grammar of Malay, published in 1882, wherein he says, that the spelling of Malay words in the native character is hardly yet fixed, though the Perso-Arabic alphabet has been in use since the 13th century, and that those follow but a vain shadow who seek to prescribe exact modes of spelling words, regarding which even native authorities are not agreed, and of which the pronunciation may vary according to locality.
On the charts published by the Batavian Hydrographic Office, the Malay names are rendered in accordance with the Dutch phonetic system of transliteration (only that the sound of g is always hard) and as this differs from the British phonetic system in several particulars, it is clear that certain corrections must be applied to the spelling of "Dutch" Malay names to facilitate the approximately correct pronunciation of such names by English speaking peoples. But a source of trouble is the seeming uncertainty of the Batavian geographers themselves in regard to the orthography of many names, since it is a frequent occurrence to find the same names variously rendered on charts, or in sailing directions issued at short intervals of time.
We can see, from what has been said above, that chances for disagreement in the rendering of geographic names, originating in countries that do not use the Roman alphabet for their literature, are numerous, and hence, the occurrence of errors in the application of a new system should not be too harshly condemned; nor would the culprits deserve to be dealt with according to the law laid down by the municipal council of the good old Swiss town of Küssnacht, which not very long ago issued a decree that the final t in the name of their town should be dropped in all official communications, and that any local official failing to obey this decree should be fined.
MR. BAKER: In the preparation of a map, the last things to go on are the names. If the map covers a region of country long known or thickly settled most of its features already have names. But comparison of several maps of, or writings about, a region almost invariably reveals confusion, contradictions and errors in the names. The same feature often bears different names on different maps. The same name has various spellings, and the names on the map may in their turn not agree with local usage. Examples of this confusion abound everywhere, and are a source of constant perplexity to the geographer.
The names are often misapplied. The name of one cape or mountain peak through accident, carelessness, ignorance, or by intent is often found attached to some other cape or mountain peak. A small feature's name may be extended to cover much more than that to which it fittingly belongs; or a name rightly applicable to a large tract may be wrongly restricted to a small one. In the hands of the map-maker geographic names may be regarded as labels loosely attached and easily misplaced. Handled by many writers, both careful and careless, these labels become misplaced or lost; and in replacing these misplaced labels or in restoring lost ones much confusion and many errors arise. The newspaper writer writing hurriedly, the magazine writer without hurry, or the book writer working deliberately, each in turn finds that the investigation of questions relating to geographic names carries him away from his subject. If a question arises respecting a non-geographic term the dictionary can be appealed to and, right or wrong, followed without discredit. But with many or most of the questions about geographic names, in the United States at least, we have no adequate dictionary or "authority" to appeal to. As a consequence in most cases the writer takes indifferently what is nearest to mind or hand and thus produces new varieties in names, variants upon old ones or quite new ones. Such names are called corrupt until usage and familiarity removes the stigma and the corrupted name having grown respectable is adopted.
A foreign name may be transliterated by one writer and translated by another. This course gives rise to two or more forms. The absence of uniform usage in transliterating, causes diversity in one case, and in the other as several translations are possible, and mistakes probable, various forms arise.
The progress of all science is intimately associated with questions of nomenclature. Modern progress in biologic science dates from the adoption of the binomial system, and it is not too much to expect that progress in geographic science will similarly be found to be intimately associated with a study of geographic names and the principles which should control in their adoption and use.
The object aimed at in these notes is to draw attention to the importance of the subject and to arouse discussion; the purpose of the discussion being to ascertain if there be not certain guiding principles which may serve to aid in solving the numerous and perplexing questions relating to geographic nomenclature.
What is a geographic name? Without attempting a categorical answer to this question I would say that geographic names seem to me to bear a strong resemblance to the names used in biology. They are generic and specific. To designate any specific geographic feature we usually use two words, one a descriptive term, such as river, island, lake, pond or mountain, and the other, a specific name indicating what particular pond, lake, or mountain is designated. The term Mississippi River is a compound name, in which river may be regarded as a part of a proper name. It is the name of a genus, whereas the term Mississippi is the specific designation. Of course it will happen in geographic names, as in biologic, that certain features or objects become so well known that a single name, either the generic or the specific will be used by itself to designate the object. We speak of Maine without prefixing the generic term "State of," the specific name being sufficiently characteristic. On the other hand here in Washington references to "the Avenue" meaning Pennsylvania Avenue are familiar to all. In this case the generic term is used for particular specification. These exceptional usages, however, do not appear to me to invalidate the general principle that the designation of geographic features consists in general of a specific and of a generic name.