“The Pitch Files” is a curated series of proposal excerpts, thoughts, and value offerings we’ve crafted for potential clients across various industries. These insights offer a glimpse into how we customise our strategies to address the unique challenges of each sector, along with quick drafts of recommendations for the most effective expansion approaches tailored to their needs—just a taste of the full strategic depth we offer.
The Strange Habit of Renaming Places
It is a curious fact of human civilisation that we cannot leave each other’s names alone. A city is founded, a river discovered, a mountain revered, and almost immediately, neighbouring cultures get to work dismantling its name and reassembling it in their own image. ‘London’ becomes ‘Londres,’ ‘Beijing’ was once ‘Peking,’ and ‘Deutschland’ emerges from the translation crucible as ‘Germany.’ Why do we do this? And more importantly, should we continue?
The act of turning endonyms (names used by locals) into exonyms (names used by outsiders) is neither neutral nor incidental. It is a process tangled in history, power, phonetics, and sometimes, sheer linguistic inertia. The question of whether to translate a place name or leave it as is has long preoccupied translators, diplomats, and the kind of people who start arguments over whether ‘Kiev’ should be spelled ‘Kyiv.’
The Case for Exonyms: Practicality, Tradition, and Habit
There are practical reasons to adapt names to fit the phonetic and grammatical structures of a language. If a name is impossible to pronounce in the target language, it tends to morph. Consider how ‘Firenze’ became ‘Florence’ in English; the original is perfectly serviceable in Italian but would likely tie an English speaker’s tongue in knots. The human tendency to prioritise ease of speech over linguistic purity is a powerful force.
There is also the argument of tradition. English has called ‘Moscow’ by its current exonym for centuries, even though Russians say ‘Moskva.’ Does it serve any purpose to change it now? We do not, after all, insist on calling ‘Rome’ by its Italian name ‘Roma.’ Yet, there is an inconsistency here: we have been more willing to adopt ‘Beijing’ over ‘Peking,’ or ‘Mumbai’ over ‘Bombay.’ The inertia of certain exonyms persists, while others fade away under political and cultural pressure.
The Case Against Exonyms: Accuracy, Respect, and Post-Colonial Reckoning
From another perspective, exonyms can be seen as a relic of outdated worldviews: one in which dominant cultures imposed names upon places they encountered, disregarding indigenous identities. Many former colonies have sought to reclaim their original names as part of decolonisation efforts, rejecting the exonyms forced upon them. ‘Ceylon’ became ‘Sri Lanka,’ ‘Burma’ is now ‘Myanmar,’ and ‘Leningrad’ reverted to ‘Saint Petersburg.’
Another argument against exonyms is the matter of accuracy. If we can pronounce ‘Tchaikovsky’ and ‘Schwarzenegger,’ why should ‘Kraków’ become ‘Cracow’? The name a people use for their homeland carries cultural weight. It signals identity, history, and even political allegiance. Insisting on outdated exonyms can feel, at best, tone-deaf and, at worst, an act of linguistic imperialism.
The Paradox of Translation Consistency
The debate over exonyms highlights a broader paradox in translation: consistency is often impossible. If we were to apply a single rule, we would either have to localize every name (calling ‘Paris’ ‘Paree’ in English) or revert to endonyms for everything (‘España’ instead of ‘Spain’). Neither solution is practical, and both feel unnatural.
Instead, language evolves through a messy and often contradictory negotiation between tradition, practicality, and socio-political pressures. What we call a place today might not be what we call it tomorrow, and that inconsistency is itself a record of human history in motion.
What’s in a Name?
The translation of geographical names is more than a linguistic footnote: it is a reflection of cultural attitudes, historical shifts, and the unsteady equilibrium between adaptation and authenticity. Whether we continue to use exonyms or transition to endonyms will depend less on hard rules and more on the slow, unpredictable drift of language over time. But one thing remains certain: whatever we decide to call them, the cities, rivers, and mountains themselves will remain, indifferent to our linguistic quarrels.
