<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Beijing vs Peking</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking</link>
	<description>Language in a word</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:46:09 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: terry</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking/comment-page-1#comment-13745</link>
		<dc:creator>terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking#comment-13745</guid>
		<description>I agree with Graham; when we call Munich Munchen, Vienna Wien, Venice Venezia and Florence Firenze, then I&#039;ll consider calling the capital of a communist country that has oppressed its people, despoiled Tibet and poses the greatest long term threat to the civilized peoples of the West by it&#039;s Chinese name Beijing, instead of its English name Peking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Graham; when we call Munich Munchen, Vienna Wien, Venice Venezia and Florence Firenze, then I&#8217;ll consider calling the capital of a communist country that has oppressed its people, despoiled Tibet and poses the greatest long term threat to the civilized peoples of the West by it&#8217;s Chinese name Beijing, instead of its English name Peking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking/comment-page-1#comment-3662</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking#comment-3662</guid>
		<description>John -
But &quot;Moscow&quot; is an equally absurd spelling for the Russian capital. Should we all start saying - and writing - &quot;Moskva&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John -<br />
But &#8220;Moscow&#8221; is an equally absurd spelling for the Russian capital. Should we all start saying &#8211; and writing &#8211; &#8220;Moskva&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Cowan</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking/comment-page-1#comment-3659</link>
		<dc:creator>John Cowan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:08:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking#comment-3659</guid>
		<description>Even if the ruthless dictatorship is overthrown, the Hanyu Pinyin romanization will almost certainly remain.  &quot;Peking&quot; is an absurd spelling in terms of modern Mandarin.

I say &quot;modern&quot; because both &quot;Peking&quot; and &quot;Nanking&quot; reflect an earlier state of Mandarin in which velar stops before front vowels had not yet merged with affricates; this sound change happened around the 16th century.  Cantonese has not undergone this sound change, and its name for the city called &quot;North-capital&quot; remains Pakking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even if the ruthless dictatorship is overthrown, the Hanyu Pinyin romanization will almost certainly remain.  &#8220;Peking&#8221; is an absurd spelling in terms of modern Mandarin.</p>
<p>I say &#8220;modern&#8221; because both &#8220;Peking&#8221; and &#8220;Nanking&#8221; reflect an earlier state of Mandarin in which velar stops before front vowels had not yet merged with affricates; this sound change happened around the 16th century.  Cantonese has not undergone this sound change, and its name for the city called &#8220;North-capital&#8221; remains Pakking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Rolf Jensen</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking/comment-page-1#comment-1721</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Rolf Jensen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking#comment-1721</guid>
		<description>The commies want us to stop using the historic transliteration; therefore we should continue to call Peking, &quot;Peking&quot;, and continue to pray for the day that the ruthless dictatorship is overthrown and freedom is restored to that land.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The commies want us to stop using the historic transliteration; therefore we should continue to call Peking, &#8220;Peking&#8221;, and continue to pray for the day that the ruthless dictatorship is overthrown and freedom is restored to that land.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: writing from beijing</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking/comment-page-1#comment-1414</link>
		<dc:creator>writing from beijing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 03:12:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking#comment-1414</guid>
		<description>Sorry, I&#039;m going with Shirin on this one. What do you make of Nanjing? The old, European pronounciation for Nanjing was &quot;Nanking&quot;. This is also a Cantonese derivative, just like Peking. (king is the cantonese word for capital, jing is the manadarin). Your argument that &quot;Pékin&quot; is found in old text is just an interesting fact that doesn&#039;t really lend support to your argument because it still could have been a Cantonese derivative. Occam&#039;s razor says you&#039;re expanation is not the right one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, I&#8217;m going with Shirin on this one. What do you make of Nanjing? The old, European pronounciation for Nanjing was &#8220;Nanking&#8221;. This is also a Cantonese derivative, just like Peking. (king is the cantonese word for capital, jing is the manadarin). Your argument that &#8220;Pékin&#8221; is found in old text is just an interesting fact that doesn&#8217;t really lend support to your argument because it still could have been a Cantonese derivative. Occam&#8217;s razor says you&#8217;re expanation is not the right one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lilli Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking/comment-page-1#comment-330</link>
		<dc:creator>Lilli Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:36:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/beijing-vs-peking#comment-330</guid>
		<description>Can we still order Peking Duck or do we need to change to Beijing Duck?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can we still order Peking Duck or do we need to change to Beijing Duck?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
