Talk:Etymology of Istanbul/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Etymology of the name 2 Why? 3 Generally Slavic name 4 All these names in the first sentence? 5 Page content doesn't match title 6 Citations needed 7 Greek section 8 Istan + Bul, the Found Land 9 stanbol +yobol

[edit] Etymology of the name

An anonymous user has posted an update to the effect that the (eis tin Poli) εις τήν Πόλι(ν) explanation [is] thought to be a folk etymology. Can he/she or anyone provide a reference for this statement? Otherwise I'm inclined to revert it. rossb 23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I’m sorry for reverting the "folk etymology" statement made by anon but I’ve just saw your reference request. Of hand, I can only provide an online resource (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Istanbul) which describes the "Islam bol - plenty of Islam" version as the folk etymology, and not the other way around. From my part I would also love to see some academic citations of any other approaches to this case --Ninio 23:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why was this reverted?

"The name Istanbul comes from the late Greek words stin Poli (ςτήν Πόλι), from Classical Greek eis tên Polin (εις τήν Πόλι(ν)) meaning "to/at the City" (the City/Polis being Constantinoupolis). The intermediate form Stamboul was commonly used in the 19th century. Because of the custom of affixing an i before certain words that start with two consonants (as in "Izmir" from Smyrna: in a coincidence of s + m, the s turns to z in pronunciation as has been attested since early Byzantine times and in modern Greek usage), it was pronounced in Turkish Istambul."

This is basically correct (although "Stamboul" looks like a re-Hellenization of the alternative Turkish form Sıtambul). The current version now leaves out the intermediate stage ςτήν Πόλι, and so is less accurate.

I always heard the εἰς τὴν πόλιν etymology during my studies of ancient Greek. And insofar as I can read the Greek & Turkish Wikipedia entries (not very much), both mention this derivation. So the first sentence of the English article still needs correcting. Someone who's comfortable with Unicode issues should go ahead & do it. --Adamgarrigus 15:22, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Is there any documentation anywhere of the city in question actually being called Eis tēn polin in Greek? Because both that and Islam bol sound like folk etymologies to me; the most likely etymology is aphaeresis and syncope of Constantinoupolis to *Stanpolis, which would then be turkicized to İstanbul. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 29 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "To the City" business is a myth, and that, indeed, the name is merely a Turkicization of "Constantinople." john k 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There must be an element Is which appears in Turcization of Greek names; compare Iznik. If this is not the Greek εις, what is it? The usage of eis is clearly post-classical, but I'll check a Byzantine dictionary when I get a chance. Septentrionalis 18:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The "to the city" thing is a folk etymology, a common thing in the Greek Language. I removed it. --NG

"To the City" is the correct etymology! It is in every respectable history/geography book. Turcization of Constantinople can never be Istanbul as it does not resemble any other turkish word, as there is no recorded turcization of a word in which the sound "K" is dropped, and as the double consonant "nb" is not stable in Turkish; many people prounounces the word "Istambul". For whatever reason I don't know, you are just making something up and insisting on it, contradicting every known source and nature of the Turkish language. And actually there is a turcization of the name "Constantinople", which is "Konstantiniyye" (Constantine's Land) which was used for a while around the time the city was conquered.

I saw this discussion here and needed to paste again.Note that me and my professors are Turkish so i think im being pretty objective here."Islambol is just a myth about where the name came from but researches show that "including the professors in my school" say that name of istanbul came from Eis tin poli,which means to the city in greek.the galata quarter,which is right at the north of the historic peninsula has always been the largest residential area specially for the greek inhabitants of the city because the historic peninsula was reserved for the sultan. Thats why the old istanbul was a passage way "to the city" which turned into istanbul in hundreds of years.Also there is no documents about the city being called islambol throughout the history." -metb82

Um met, I suggest you do a bit more reading,

It was called by various people's

Islambol, Kushta, Gosdantnubolis, Tsarigrad, Rumiyya al-kubra, New Rome, New Jerusalem, the eye of the world, the Refuge of the Universe, the Gate of Hapiness, Pay-i-Taht...

City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924 by Phillip Mansel Introduction

Islambol was used and its etymology is very similar to Istanbul so it makes sense.

Johnstevens5

As it has already been pointed out with "eis Nikaia(n) --> Iznik," Izmit is also a good example for this change. "eis Nikomedia(n)" first became "Iznikmit" during the Ottoman centuries, and then finally became "Izmit," which is also used today. All Byzantine historians refer to CP as either "the City" (Pole/Polis) or the City of Constantine, or only of Constantine (if they are not using terms like "Capital" or "Queen City", or simply Byzantion): I saw "eis Konstantinou" as well. I am not talking about one or two instances, but a very wide range of Byzantine Greek sources, from 6th century to the end. There is not this much historical evidence to prove "Islambol" as the source, though. Literature did use "Islambol" maybe (big maybe, someone has to check this) in order to rhyme with "Istambol" or to fit the meter in verse, etc. --Kutkut16 03:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that there is any certainty about the εις την Πόλη etymology. I know it is widely quoted, but unless someone explains why and how the city changed name to this strange phrase, I refuse to trust it. Is there any other place in the world in any language that is called "to the..."? It could be true, and we have no better explanation, but that doesn't mean that it is true. My vote goes for "no one knows for sure, but it may be..." Mlewan 20:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

I really, really wonder if a separate page for this is necessary. It seems absolutely silly to me, as—whatever arguments might crop up on Istanbul's etymology section—they can certainly be resolved there. Don't you think? —Saposcat 20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Saposcat; I believe this is an issue; let me give you my life as an example; my friends always ask me "is it Constantinople or is it Istanbul?" If something generates questions, it is an issue. I want to bring another concern which you might agree with. It has become important, if you read the articles that refer to this city, as opposing authors’ compel to add information on why they choose one terminology over another. I do not believe enforcing military action on every page pushing my belief (in Ottoman Empire had three long sentences [1]). However, my best of is: "Constantinople (Turkish: Konstantiniye, popularly called during this period İstanbul, but not officially named so until 1930)" If you eliminate these explanations someone will be compelled to add them. I 'm thinking of replacing these long sentences with a link that points to this page, which will make everyone happy. Hope it will cover your concern, by adding another dimension to what you perceive of as "silliness".--OttomanReference 21:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also as Saposcat point out, if someone really think this concept ethmology is stupid, why don’t you concentrate on having two different pages for the same city.--OttomanReference 21:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generally Slavic name

Czargrad (Tzargrad, Tzarigrad) is not specifically Russian but Slavic name for Constantinople and most probably dates from the times the name Constantinople was given to the city as the eastern capital of the Roman Empire. Gradually it has became a centre of the Eastern Orthodox christianity and church. With the christianization of the Slavic peoples the name Tzargrad has spread and became a common designator of the centre of the Eastern Christian hemisphere. It is still used (though Istambul is more common amongst the last generations) at least in Bulgaria. [edit]

Third passage

I don't see how the info on imperial aspirations of Ivan III and "Moscow as the Third Rome" theory fits in this article, considering that the word has been used in Russia ever since the Slavs settled the area. --Ghirlandajo 28 June 2005 10:17 (UTC) [edit]

[edit] All these names in the first sentence?

Do we really need all the names in all the languages listed in the very first sentence of the article? Purely stylistically too much clutter. I would restructure the first sentence, leaving perhaps Old Church Slavonic or "Old Chruch Slavonic" there only and saying that written and sounds similarly in other Slavic languages. Later in the text, we could list all names if necessary. I just want to suggest this first, to see if anyone objects. I know striking down names in languages often touch very many raw nerves, and I do it without proposing only when I am absolutely positive that doing so is better for the article. Objections to this change? If anyone wants to do it, you're welcome of course. --Irpen 05:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

   Support. --Ghirlandajo 08:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to merge it anyway, a separate article for a different name of Constantinople/Istanbul is pointless. --Revolución (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

   Strongly oppose deleting important article. --Ghirlandajo 07:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not happy with the current first sentence either, why do we have to treat Byzantium and Constantinople as if they are valid modern synonyms for Istanbul? Kutkut16 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page content doesn't match title

Okay, for a page entitled Istanbul (etymology), there's a lot of talking about things that have nothing to do with the etymology of the word Istanbul (except for the last section, which was brought over direct from Istanbul#Etymology). If this is what the goal of the page is wanting to be, it should be moved to something like Names of Istanbul or some such. —Muke Tever talk 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

It was requested I use {{citation needed}} instead of {{unreferenced}} to refer to the etymologies found to be contentious per the discussions on Talk:Istanbul (and apparently copied above). I added one myself on the addition of the 'i' being a 'custom', as it does not look like a customary thing but a prothetic vowel mandated by the language's phonotactics. —Muke Tever talk 22:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hectorian removed the {{citation needed}} tags with the comment: "no need for 'citations needed'-everything is explained, historically known and follows the rules of linguistics" — of course they are explained, and I don't doubt that they follow familiar linguistic rules, but I can't agree with 'historically known' without cites being given. To give an etymology, especially a contentious one, an etymologist must be cited. Wikipedia's track record on etymologies so far as I have seen is abysmal and I am entirely disinclined to trust any etymological assertion given here without a reference, preferably one in print.

Myself I have seen two "explained" etymologies for Istanbul that "follow the rules of linguistics": the one on this page, and the theory (also mentioned by User:John Kenney above) that it is a reduced form of the word 'Constantinople' itself. I don't have any vested interest in preferring one over the other, but I think that if only one is going to be given, an authority should be cited (and even better would be a mention of the other etymologies and citations refuting them). —Muke Tever talk 12:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment 'historically known', was editted in the edit-summary i made, not in the article itself, so i do not think anyone is asking for citations about that. Secondly, i wonder why u really ask for citations... well, here are some: Catholic Encyclopedia [2], Encyclopedia of the Orient [3], Britannica [4], Encarta [[5]], i can find more... About which etymology is correct, i can talk only according to what i know from linguistcs (i bet u know many things as well), and here is just one example: if we accept the theory 'eis tēn Pólē' as correct, the -t- in the name 'Istanbul' has remained. but if we accept the theory that the name comes from 'Islambol', the -l- has been transformed in a -t-... honestly, no matter how many linguistics lessons i have taken, or how much i have searched on this subject, i have never seen a similar change... Lastly, about the phrase: 'Islambol, meaning "full of Islam" and under which the Turks had known the city since the 11th century': neither u, nor anyone else added a 'citation needed' there, but it was me who did. and i wonder why... Isn't that strange? a city center of Christianity, been called 'full of Islam'? didn't u see that it is obviously POV-pushing? i will remove the second half of this sentence, if no source is given. --Hectorian 00:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where in the world did I ever mention 'Islambol' ? Read again.

I brought up your 'historically known' comment because the whole point of asking for citations is to show that a thing is historically known, and thus removing a request for a citation on that ground is ridiculous.

I did not mark 'Islambol' as citation-needed in the article because it does not raise any etymological questions: the article only asserts the name existed (which I understand is true, though I don't know about the date) and that it is a variation on, i.e. derived from 'Istanbul' (it specifically does not claim the controversial reverse). But 'Islambol' doesn't interest me at all.

Anyway, the cites you have are all fine sources and can be added, but they are all secondary sources, and a primary source, or at least a secondary source devoted to etymology, might be better. —Muke Tever talk 02:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that it was u who mentioned 'Islambol'. all i said is that u did not mark it as citation-needed, but anyway, u have covered my curiority.

What are the etymological questions that u might have regarding the theory 'eis tēn Pólē'? i haven't yet fully understood.

I think that the sources i have provided as reliable enough, although secondary. i may be able to find primary sources (or perhaps some other user will), but i think that the citations-needed must be now removed. --Hectorian 02:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned that I knew of two plausible etymologies, and when you responded with "about which etymology is correct..." you spoke of eis-ten-poli (which I did mention) and Islambol (which I did not), so either the sentence had no meaning, or you were responding to something you thought I wrote.

BTW, how could you remove the citations-needed tags? The citations haven't been added to the article. (They're not "citations-needed-for-the-talk-page" tags.) —Muke Tever talk 21:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek section

"Byzantine writers contrasted with Byzantium (pagan roots) as (Constantinople) had always been a Christian city. Polemical writings after the Great Schism even claimed that Old Rome was too stained by the blood of martyrs to lead Christianity."

I think this needs an edit... in places it's obscure and in others it's just plain difficult to comprehend. I'll have a (probably careless and error-ridden) bash at amending it... please can the learned ones watch carefully for my stupidity and amend, but without reinstating the existing difficulties in new form? Thanks. --Dweller 09:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller. It sounds as if CP was always an exclusively Christian city--at least for the centuries before the Great Schism. What's the good of claiming this in an article about the etymology of the name, anyway? --Kutkut16 03:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Istan + Bul, the Found Land

I am quite surprised that everyone contributing to this article has missed the real point as to the etymology of the word Istanbul. I know both Greek and Turkish, and as someone who is specially interested in ancient forms of Turkish/Turkic it seems to me so obvious that Istanbul isn't derived from the Greek "i-stin-poli". As most people here have mentioned, that phrase means "to the city" and was used at the time in the form, for example "i am going to the city - pao stin poli". If this was to be converted in the form of a name, it would have been "I-poli", remember the city called Tripoli (no "stin") or as suggested by someone else "i-Smyrni", Turkish being "I-zmir" (again no "stin" although the same format would have applied as "pao stin Smyrni).

When we separate Istanbul into its two components, "Istan" and "Bul", it makes more sense. As most of you will notice, "Istan" is usually used as a suffix in many country names such as Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan (no need to mention that these countries still speak forms of Turkic that is understandable to a Turkish person) etc... "Istan" originally means "country" or "land" in ancient Turkish. Also "Bul" is still used in modern Turkish in the meaning "to find". Therefore, it would be perfectly correct to say that Istanbul is a Turkic word meaning "the found land". The other suggestions are not etymologically correct.

regards,

HK

If this was the true etymology, it would be 'Bul-istan' like Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgistan etc. "i-stin-poli" does not only mean "to the city" but also "in the city". Apropos, u wrote it wrong... it is not "i-stin-poli" but "is-tin-poli" (εις την Πόλη). btw, "-stan" is a persian suffix, not a turkic one. the etymology from the greek phrase is perfectly explained by the linguistic changes and historical reasons (id est that the city was usually just called 'Πόλη' (simply 'City')-and still is in Greece). The other etymology 'Islam+bol' also is fake since the name 'Istanbul' can neither be linguisticaly explained as coming from this (-la- cannot be transformed in -ta-) nor historically explained (Turks called the city 'Istanbul' before 1453, when the city had no muslim population at all! so, u can't name a city 'plenty of Islam', when no muslim is present there. Regards --Hectorian 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stanbol +yobol

• stanbol= stan:stone +bol:
• yobol= yo: + bol: Beşikdüzünde bir burun adı.