鄧永鏘（DavidTang）
中國會、上海灘創辦人

Inthatwonderfulsong"Let'sCalltheWholeThingOff",LouisArmstrongarguedwithEllaFitzgeraldoverpronunciation.Hesaid"potato"andshesaid"po-tar-to";hesaid"tomato"andshesaid"to-mai-to".
Icanwellunderstandthequarrel.Ialwayscringeonhearingpeoplemispronounce"Beijing",andcringemoreforhavingtosuffertheoldhowlerthattheEnglishnameforthecapitalofChinahasbeenchangedfrom"Peking"to"Beijing".Let'sgetitright.TheEnglishnameofthecapitalofChinahasneverbeenchangedfrom"Peking"to"Beijing".Somanypeopleareignorantaboutthis.
WhenoneisspeakinginEnglish,thereisnologicinusingnon-Englishwords.Indeed,itispretentioustodoso.Ifonesays,"IamgoingtoBeijing",oneisbothillogicalandpretentioussince"Beijing"isanon-Englishword.NorisitaChinesewordsinceChineseiswrittenincharacterform.Wedon'tsay"我去London".Wesay,"我去倫敦".
"Beijing"isanartificialwordmadeupinanartificiallanguagecalled"Pinyin",whichliterallymeans"phonetictransliteration".Inthisartificiallanguage,thefamiliaralphabetofEnglishisintentionallyusedtoassimilatetheChinesesounds.Allthevowshavemoreorlessthesamephonetics.ButbecauseChineseisamulti-tonelanguage,thereareobviouslysoundswhichtheEnglishalphabetcannotcopewith.Hence"q"topronouncelike"chi",or"zh"topronouncelike"jeu"-soundswhicharenotfoundinEnglish.Allthisalsodemonstratesthepurelysemanticaspecttotheword"Beijing.

Indeed,thephoneticsoundsfor"bei"and"jing"arenotknowninEnglish.Thisexplainstheconstantmispronunciationof"Beijing",whenitispronouncedasifitwereEnglish.Theresultisratheruglyandridiculous-justasifoneweretosay"Rooma"(tomeanRoma)or"Florenzee"(tomeanFirenze).Wedon't,forexample,say"IliveinXianggang",whichiswhatlogicallyweshouldsayifweuse"Beijing".Butwedon't.
ItissimplyamisconceptionthatsomehowChinadecidedtochangethenamesofallthecitiesandprovinces.Shedidnot.AndevidenceofthiscomesintheformofShanghai,whichremains"Shanghai"preciselybecauseofthePinyinnameforthecityhappens,quitecoincidentally,tobespeltthesamewayasEnglish.ThetruthisthatChinabeganpromotingPinyinintheFiftiesandSixtiesnotonlytomitigatetheilliteracyofthepopulation,butalsoasareactiontoitsimperialpast.Chinesecharacterswerealsosimplifiedatthesametimeformoreorlessthesamereason.
Butperhapspeopleshouldbeforgiven,althoughtheyshouldnotgouncorrected,inthinkingthatChinahadchangedallthenames,becausetherehavebeenmanyothercasesofrealchange:SaigontoHoChiMinhCity,LaurencoMarquestoMaputo,RhodesiatoZimbabwe,SiamtoThailand,CeylontoSriLanka,BurmatoMyanmar.Butinalltheseinstances,thechangeswererealones,basedentirelyonpoliticsandcompletelydivorcedfromanysemanticconsiderations.

Sothechargeofcolonialisminusing"Peking"ismisplaced.ItarisesfromamisunderstandingofthesemanticchangesinChinaandhasnothingtodowithself-righteouscolonialistswishingtoretaintheirlingo.Colonialwordsaredividedintothosewhicharereallynativeandhavesincebecomeanachronistic(likewallah,memsahib,coolieandtiffin),orracist(likechink,sambo,wogandjunglebunny).Buttheuseof"Peking"fallsintoneitherofthesecategories,and,therefore,usingthewordcannotbecolonial.
ItistimewestopvictimizingtheperfectlygoodEnglishword"Peking".Italsosoundssomuchmoreromanticthan"Beijing"!Furthermore,alltheforeigners,especiallythoseAmericanannouncersonradioandtelevision,aremurderingthepronunciationoftheword-"Bei"comesoutsoundinglike"bay"and"jing"likethefirstsyllableof"jingle".But"Bayjing"isnonsense.ItisnotEnglish.ItisnotChinese.ItisnotPinyin.Itisalsoincorrectandveryhardontheears.Andpretentioustoboot.So,downwith"Beijing"!
IoftenwonderwhoreadsthisEnglishcolumnofmineeveryfortnightinthisChinesenewspaper.Iwould,therefore,bemostinterestedtohearfromreaders,regularorirregular,[email protected].