?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Mattress revisited, Surf's Up, and Sulfur Island - The online computery journal thingy of a turtle

Jun. 21st, 2007

05:52 pm - Mattress revisited, Surf's Up, and Sulfur Island

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

So, we decided to keep the thick mattress after all. It would just be a lot more hassle to get it exchanged, and possibly some extra expense, and the mattress I got is a perfectly good one. If my feet not touching the floor is too much of a problem, there are things I can do about it, like removing the frame and putting the box spring directly on the floor, or getting a stepstool. As for the clock, I've needed to get something else to put it on for a long time now.




Yesterday I saw "Surf's Up". It was fun, and visually impressive, and I like the character designs. The story was pretty good too.




I hear the Japanese government has renamed Iwo Jima as Iwo To (or Iwōtō), which is what it was called before WWII. The two names are different readings of the same Japanese characters, 硫黄島; it seems a Japanese naval officer who arrived on the island to fortify it used the wrong reading when telling the Americans the name. So ever since then the inhabitants have been asking the government to change the name back, and they've finally done it. But now several WWII veterans are upset that calling the island "Iwo To" disrespects its history. I'd say calling it "Iwo Jima" in the first place disrespected even more history, but on the other hand it is basically a tiny barren island fit for little more than mining sulfur (the name, whichever way it's pronounced, means "sulfur island"). So... I dunno. What do you think?

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:nicodemusrat
Date:June 21st, 2007 07:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Personally, I think that it's their island so they get to name it what they want. Simple.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:athelind
Date:June 21st, 2007 07:06 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The people who live in a place should have the final say on what it's named.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:thecanuckguy
Date:June 21st, 2007 08:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Although there's plenty of places in the world today that prefer to be called something else, yet everyone else still calls them another name, like Myanmar (government request)/Burma (popular), Cote d'Ivoire (government request)/Ivory Coast (popular), Timor Leste (government request)/East Timor (popular), Kaalalit Nunnat (government request)/Greenland (popular). Those are just those off the top of my head.

Maybe on Japanese maps (and whoever else wants) it can be called "Iwo To", and American maps can still call it "Iwo Jima". After all, we know where Iwo Jima is already ...

OTOH, I don't see how changing, or keeping, the name has an affect on the history. After all, the Battle of Stalingrad has not lost its place in history, nor the importance of it to both Germans and Russians (and possibly the closest equivalent of the Battle of Iwo Jima to Russia) despite Stalingrad's name change to Volgograd.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kinkyturtle
Date:June 21st, 2007 09:19 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well of course on Japanese maps it's called 硫黄島, and that's never changed. Just how it's read. And yeah, just because the government's calling it Iwo To now doesn't mean we can't refer to the Battle of Iwo Jima anymore.

(And it's Kalaalit Nunaat, not Kaalalit Nunnat! HOW could you get that WRONG?!)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:wbwolf
Date:June 21st, 2007 11:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Klatu Barada Nikto?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kinkyturtle
Date:June 22nd, 2007 12:14 am (UTC)
(Link)
Er... Kalaallit Nunaat. A-heh.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:nefaria
Date:June 22nd, 2007 08:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
Kal-El, it nun hat?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:doco
Date:June 21st, 2007 07:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Isn't it just an empty rock with a military base on it these days, anyways?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:typographer
Date:June 21st, 2007 08:17 pm (UTC)

Very small correction

(Link)
It's former inhabitants.

It's now used exclusively for joint US-Japanese military purposes. None of the former inhabitants have been allowed to move back.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:jdm314
Date:June 22nd, 2007 01:21 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think it's a little silly to worry about places having different names in different languages. I mean, is it disrespectful, or offensive that the Japanese call the USA Beikoku?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kinkyturtle
Date:June 22nd, 2007 01:48 am (UTC)
(Link)
But we're talking about two Japanese names here, not one Japanese name and its translation. Your analogy doesn't fit, unless we were calling it "Sulfur Island".

Although there is one example of a place having another name in another language that really bugs me. Geneva, Switzerland; we call it "Geneva", the local French-speaking population calls it "Genève". This is fine. But y'know what the German speakers call it? "Genf". Bleccch!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:nefaria
Date:June 22nd, 2007 08:20 am (UTC)
(Link)
Are you going to row your new matress while the surf's up to Sulfur Island?

Generally I say let people name things what they want and don't get offended if they name it something other than what you did. So the Japanese can call it Iwo To and Americans can call it Iwo Jima. We call their country Japan even though they call it Nippon, so they're used to us getting the names of things wrong.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:hartree
Date:June 22nd, 2007 09:21 am (UTC)

Iwa To-Jima:

(Link)
You say pot-a-to, I say pot-ah-to.

And Dan Quayle spells it with an "e".
(Reply) (Thread)