Talk:Names of Istanbul/Archive 1

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)

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)

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]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

stanbol +yobol

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

"Is tin poli"?

If we are going to have an article on such an esoteric subject, let us try to be accurate. The belief that Istanbul derives from eis tin Poli is a piece of folk etymology, on a par with the belief that Rome is named after Romulus, or Britain after Brittas. The name Istanbul is a perfectly straightforward Turkish rendering of Konstantinoupolis. Why would the Ottomans name their capital city with a meaningless (to them) snippet of Greek? Adam 13:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In the same way that they named Iznik, Izmir, Trabzon, Ankara, et cetera. --Hectorian 14:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The whole Ottoman tradition was not to rename cities, but rather to refer to them with a turkicised version of their pre-Ottoman name. Thessaloniki to Selanik is another good example. So you would expect them to call Constantinople a shortened Turkish version of Konstantinoupolis, and that's exactly what Istanbul is. Adam 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, Adam is perfectly right. Sadly these silly myths still persist. Anyone with a smattering of historical linguistics can easily see how Constantinoupolis becomes Istanbul. It is a simple adaptation to the Turkish phonological sound system. What happened to the con, the tino and the is? There is a tendency for words to lose phones over time, especially when adapted to another language's phonological system. As for the Turks adopting 'is tin polin', this is as improbable as it is ridiculous. T A Francis (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Tim

I am not sure if i have understood what exactly u mean, but have in mind that the Greeks (during the Byzantine times and today) call Istanbul simply 'Poli' (City). so, a corruption of this name (Poli) accompanied by the preposition meaning 'to' is also possible. Do not forget that 'Iznik' comes from a similar phrase 'eis Nikaia', or in the IPA 'iz nik(ea)', meaning simply 'to Nicaia'. --Hectorian 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the need to replace one guess with another. I do not accept the εις την Πόλη etymology as a fact, and neither do I accept the Constantinople origin theory as a fact. None of them should be called a fact in the article without reliable sources. Lacking that, both should be called theories. My guess is that the Constantinople origin theory is right, but as there seems to be no proof, the article should not claim any certainty. Mlewan 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• In reply to Hector: Istanbul is a Turkish name, not a Greek one, so what the Greeks called the city is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the Ottomans named the Greek cities they conquered. They didn't rename them, they merely used turkicised versions of their Greek names. It makes no sense to suppose that the Ottomans would have adopted a Greek phrase as a new name for their capital.
• In reply to Mlewan: Of course we do not know as a verifiable fact what the etymological history of "Istanbul" is, since the Ottomans did not write learned treatises about it. But the name obviously has to have an etymology of some sort, and we therefore have to choose the more likely of the two candidate theories. My point is that the Konstantinoupolis >> Istanbul theory is simpler (Ockham's razor) and consistent with Ottoman naming practices, whereas the "eis tin Poli" is nothing but a piece of unsubstantiated folk etymology, undoubtedly invented by Greeks as a joke on the Ottomans. Adam 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Simpler? A k disappeared. An n disappeared. Two full syllables of "tino" disappeared. And you have no evidence on when they disappeared or why they disappeared or any intermediate forms. Your etymology is the most sensible one, but it is by no means simple or verified. The εις την Πόλη etymology sounds ridiculous to you and me, but it is not excluded that it is right in spite of that. And neither is it excluded that it influenced the contraction of Constantinople to Istanbul. Mlewan 10:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mlewan. Adam's theory lacks academic support, since the changes he suggest that have happened from Konstantinoupolis >> Istanbul are not compatible with linguistics... whole syllabes and letters simply disappeared! the theory εις την Πόλη is tin Poli, no matter if it seems ridiculous to both of u, it is perfectly compatible with linguistics: 'is+tan(i=a is not a big change, having in mind that even many ancient greek dialects had 'tan' instead of 'tin' as an article)+bul(p after n is heard as b in modern greek as well, o=u is somehow an expansion of o and the ommittion of the last i can be easily explained for a language with no grammatical gender as the turkish language is-in greek -η indicates the female gender). as u see Adam, it doesn't seem a piece of unsubstantiated folk etymology, undoubtedly invented by Greeks as a joke on the Ottomans now... lol Hectorian 11:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, just to make it clear, the fact that you phonematically can deduct Istanbul from εις την Πόλη is no proof for the other side either. There are plenty of false friends out there. To me the big problem is the semantic shift from "to the city" which is supposed to become a city name. Mlewan 12:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see a major difference between mine and yours opinions. u say they used turkicised versions of their Greek names, i suggest they used turkicised versions of their Greek names/phraeses concerning them. PS: i never said that Istanbul is a Greek name! u will hardly find any Greek calling this city by that name... Hectorian 00:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence they used "Greek phrases", and no conceivable reason they would do so. Adam 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mlewan - yes, several syllables of Konstantinoupolis disappeared when it morphed into Istanbul. Likewise letters disappeared when Thessaloniki became Selanik, when Trebizond became Trabzon and when Adrianoupolis became Edirne. That's how the Ottomans rendered Greek names into Turkish. Since they did it consistently, this constitutes firm evidence for my thesis as against the "eis tin Poli" thesis. And we do have an intermediate form in Stamboul. Adam 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Consistently? In which way did they disappear "consistently"? In none of the cases you cite, any syllables have disappeared from the middle of a word. At the beginning - yes. At the end - yes. In the middle - not at all. And in the Constantinople -> Istanbul shift we are supposed to accept that two middle syllables disappear without any trace. And how would "stamboul" be an intermediate form? It is simply Istanbul without the initial "i". It could equally well be a later derivative form.

But let that be as it may. Just come with a reference or a reliable source, which supports your theory. That is the way to settle discussions in Wikipedia. Mlewan 12:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Kindly do not distort what I write. I did not say that syllables disappear consistently. I said that the Ottomans consistently shortened Greek place names, and I have provided examples. Adam 12:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But my main point was to request sources for your theory. Where are they? We cannot use original research, as you well know. Mlewan 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be ignoring the fact that there were two Ottoman names for Constantinople: the official one, Kostantiniyye (literally "Constantinian" -- the full literal translation would have been something like şehir-i-Kostantiniyye), and the popular one, Istanbul. Pace Adam, Kostantiniyye is actually not just a phonetic rendering of the Greek name. As for Istanbul, it seems highly likely that the "I" is an epenthetic adjustment to Turkish phonotactics, as the name "stambul" was also widely used. But it doesn't seem unlikely that the "stam" reflects στην. Η Πολις was (and is) a common name for Constantinople, not just some nonce phrase referring to it. Compare the Arab city Medina (literally City). And στην Πολη [stim'boli] is almost identical to Stambul. And where did the "z" in Iznik (Greek [nikea]) come from? So it hardly seems farfetched that Greek [stimboli] became Turkish [stambul], much more likely than that [konstandi'nupoli] became [stambul], with a loss of an accented syllable! Anyway, this is not for us to resolve here. Are there good references on one or both sides of the issue? Until there are, let's present both theories. --Macrakis 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So long as "eis tin Poli" is not presented as an uncontested fact, as it was before I rewrote it. Adam 01:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is a resource for you Istanbul was Constantinople ?

Now all of you who are capable can make the article of a value for Wikipedia. --Azaza767 01:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting article, although I don't think it proves anything except that the city had several different names in the Ottoman period. Incidentally it is not true that the city is still always called Constantinople in Greece. I was in Thessaloniki in 2002 and I bought a train ticket to Istanbul. The station signage and the Greek Railways ticket both said Istanbul. Adam 01:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well does at least give, in a some sense, proof to what you said earlier and it does just say restive to acepting, not resistant acepting. --Azaza767 02:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To Adam: when we say that in Greece the city is always called 'Constantinople', we mean by the Greeks. of course, the tourists who are in Greece and want to travel there, will hear it called 'Istanbul'. in the airports, u will listen to the information in 2 or 3 languages (Greek, English, French). in Greek, u will never listen the word Istanbul. in the same way, if your ticket was in english, of course u read Istanbul! and the station signages are in two languages in Greece: english and greek. the name 'Istanbul' is not banned in Greece, lol! we just don't use it when we talk to other Greeks... we prefer the original one, the one we got used to... Hectorian 04:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To isoterion-mou itan en Ellinika, kai ta simadia sto stathmo itan en Ellinika. (better Greek than mine, no doubt) Adam 08:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess the article will just have to say there are two theories and leave the reader to judge. Anyway I don't intend spending more time on this extremely esoteric question. Kali spera sas. Adam 11:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam, it would actually be good if you spent five more minutes on the article. We so far have no single source for your theory. Unless you come up with one, that sentence is likely to be removed in the future, and I think it would be a pity to leave the "to the city"-theory as the only suggested explanation. It may be silly, but it is backed up by Encyclopædia Britannica. Mlewan 11:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if it seems silly or not, but since it is backed up by Britannica and Columbia, there is no reason to exclude it. every theory is welcomed in wikipedia, as long as it has sources, and each theory should get the validity and interest it deserves. so far, there are two prominent theories regarding the city's name. if other theories come up someday, we will discuss it again. btw, i reverted the article back to Mlewan's version, since we are not talking just about a 'suggestion'. it is a fact, at least according to the verifiable sources provided (and Britannica is considered quite a 'strong' source!). Regards Hectorian 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I second Mlewan and Hectorian here. The view that Istanbul is from "Is tin Polin" is the only one I've ever read anywhere in the literature; whe have currently not the slightest indication that any other hypothesis has ever been proposed; the analogical evidence from the other "is-" placenames is nothing short of overwhelming; the hypothetical derivation directly from "Konstantinoupoli" would be highly irregular; that from "Is tin Polin" is linguistically straightforward and can be explained very simply sound by sound. I distinctly remember once reading in a serious linguistic publication that even the /a/ in the middle syllable may be quite regular, because the local Greek dialects at that time would have had "tan" instead of "tin" as the article, so that "is tan pol(i)" with a bit of northern vocalism and the usual sandhi assimilation around the /np/ would lead directly to the target form. Can't unfortunately now remember where I read that, it was years ago. In the absence of counter-proposals actually verified in the literature, I'd say this etymology as as good as any that was ever proposed for any word by any linguist. Sure, historical reconstruction isn't an exact science, but linguists know when to trust an etymology and when not to, and this one's straightforward for all I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify:

...why the etymology is so regular

• Semantically: everybody agrees Greeks were referring to the city as "Poli". The normal Turk on the streets (of medieval Asia Minor) would never have much opportunity of hearing "Konstantinople" anyway.
• "(i)stin Poli" was the regular way of referring to the city in locative adverbials (both "to" and "in"). Locative adverbials are probably the most frequent syntactic context where placenames occur.
• Turkish had no articles and no prepositions. A native Turkish speaker would therefore have difficulties analysing "istinpoli", when heard from a Greek speaker: they wouldn't expect grammatical morphemes to be at the beginning of the string, but at the end of it. Therefore, they would be prone to misconstrue the "(i)stin-" part as part of the name proper (and possibly the final "-i" as being not part of it).
• There's no need for the hypothesis of Turkish adding the initial "i-" for phonotactic reasons. Remember that Greek itself was just shedding the initial "i-" (formal Greek "is tin", colloquial Greek "stin"). The later alternation between "Stambul" and "Istanbul" exactly reflects the alternation between "is tin" and "stin" that you'd have in Greek. (Just yesterday, I heard an expert on contact linguistics giving a seminar saying that if a language reproduces an alternation between two doublet forms from a source language, that's one of the clearest indicators that the forms are actually borrowed from that source.)
• Other sounds involved:
  • the /a/ in "Istanbul": as stated above, I seem to remember there's a dialectological finding that local Greek might have had /a/ in the article "tan" (instead of "tin")
  • the /i/ in the beginning: Note how this /i/ conflicts with Turkish vowel harmony. Turks would never have invented an i in that position out of thin air, if it hadn't been in the source (Gr. "is-"). The derivation from "Konstantin-" doesn't offer an /i/ in that syllable.
  • the /b/ in "-bul": regular voicing assimilation, exactly taken over from Greek
  • the alternation between /n/ and /m/ in "(i)sta(n|m)bul": reflects the assimilation n>m in spoken Greek in that position
  • the /u/ in the final syllable: northern Greek dialects have a strong tendency to raise /o/ > /u/ in many words.
  • the loss of the final /i/: northern Greek dialects have a strong tendency to erase unstressed /i/ at the end of words.
• Result: Perfect regularity, every single sound easily explainable.

Why the derivation from "Konstantinoupoli" doesn't work

That derivation requires:

• the loss of "Kon-". No reason why exactly the most salient, initial syllable would get lost
• the addition of prothetic "i-" to make the consonant cluster "st-" pronouncable. But why would Turkish speakers first cut off a syllable ("Kon-") in the first place, if that left them with a difficult-to-pronounce cluster at the cutoff point so that another syllable had to be added back? And why would they choose the least fitting vowel in terms of vowel harmony?
• loss of "-tino-". No explanation.
• voicing of "p" > "b". No explanation, because the "p" hadn't been in a voicing environment in Greek.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough explanation. Perhaps the arguments should be added to the article itself, so people like Adam and myself, who were not convinced, are not tempted to change explanation again in the future. If you do so, I suggest you add a separate section for it, instead of listing all the details in the introduction. Mlewan 15:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd need to research this a bit to find references, otherwise it would be rather on the OR side, I'm afraid. I just intended it as an explanation here among editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: the disappearing first syllable "Con" in the possible change from "Constantinople" to "Istanbul". Does anyone know if "Kon" in Turkish might have meant anything which could have been seen as a separate word? A little Googling seems to indicate that it has something to do with houses and dwelling. AG, 3 Mar 07

You may be thinking of konak 'dwelling', but I don't think kon alone would carry any meaning. Any in any case, it's idle speculation; as has been pointed out numerous times the consensus in the relevant literature is crystal clear and there's not the slightest reason why we should start speculating on our own here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Indulge a non-linguist for a tic. Please explain why the two following examples don't take the force from your points above under "Why the derivation from "Konstantinoupoli" doesn't work". 1) Apparently the Greek city of Nicomedia is now İzmit. Hey, where'd the all-important first two entire syllables, "Nico-", go? And don't try and tell me that the Greeks used to go around saying "is tin 'media" and then started to leave out the "tin" just for fun. It seems to me that if the Turks could surgically extract "mit" from the dead center of "Nicomedia" and slap an "Iz-" in front of it and call it a city name, they could certainly extract "stan-ple" from "Constantinople" and slap an "Is-" in front of it. 2) As for the "p > b" issue, the city of "Claudiopolis" is now apparently "Bolu". Same thing, no? I'm new to this site so I apologize if my format here is wrong. AG, 3 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.106.38.143 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Heh, welcome to Wikipedia, and no problem about forcing the discussion. :-) I'm not terribly well informed about the Nicomedia case, but at least, Nico-media is actually a compound with a juncture at that point, in Greek, so yep, I wouldn't put it past the Greeks that they might have been the culprits in that case. Similarly for "Bolu"; that one really looks as if it was a doublet, yet another case where Greeks had been just referring to "poli". Note that p>b would have occurred in Greek in that case too, when preceded by an accusative article. The point is: you would get the p>b softening only if the word had been cut up at that point already by Greeks, because it was in their language that the relevant assimilation rule was active. -- But anyway, whatever it may be - it's not for us to decide and all the discussion and speculation we're engaging in here is just a pleasant but futile way of passing our time. Your speculations or mine are not supposed to go into the article (see "no original research" policy); we're just supposed to report what the literature says. And, I repeat, the literature is unanimous with respect to Istanbul. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

More on (I)stambul

Interesting article:"Edward G. Bourne, "The Derivation of Stamboul", American journal of philology 8:1:78 (1887)JSTOR

The alteration of Abarinos into Navarino follows, of course, the usual Greek habit of prefixing to the medieval name the last letter of the accusative of the article. Thus eis ton Avarinon becomes Navarinon, just as eis tin Polis becomes Stambul, eis tas Athinas Satines or Sathines, eis tas Thivas Estives.

William Miller, "The Name of Navarino", The English Historical Review 20:78 (Apr., 1905), pp. 307-309JSTOR

These articles point out that the merging of part of the article with the placename was also common before the Ottoman period. Peculiarly, in the case of Navarino, it starts as Avarino, becomes Navarino in Greek, and then Anavarin in Turkish, with no phonotactic motivation in Greek, Venetian, or Turkish for the "a".

Judging from the Google Books snippet, there seems to be some discussion of this in Beiträge zur Namenforschung, ed Ernst Dickenmann, but I don't have access to the book. --Macrakis 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came across another interesting case: "Ancient Lappa was so great that it was known in the middle ages simply as Stímpolis, 'In the City', later as Pólis..." (Oliver Rackham and Jennifer Moody, The Making of the Cretan Landscape, Manchester University Press, 1996. ISBN 0-7190-3646-1. p. 104) --Macrakis 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Ottomans actually used the word Konstantiniyye, which actually an Arabic translation of Constantinopolis. The word Istanbul was commonly used by peasants, not by the Ottoman Administration. The "is tin poli" explanation makes perfect sense. However, there is one thing that bothers me: The word does not follow the Turkish vowel harmony rules; therefore there is no reason for the "tin" to mutate to "tan". I don't want to post anything on the web page, since this is actually original work; but if anybody knows of an article on the subject, please post it. --[[User::Sinanozel]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinanozel (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have heard a theory (admittedly in a dodgy TV channel) which I don't know if it holds ground. The old pronunciation of την was ten and some populations like the Pontians (see Pontic language) had maintained their ancient pronunciation, so what the Ottomans actually heard when they first contacted the Greeks was "istenpoli". --   Avg    04:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves

(A) Move Etymology of Istanbul to Names of Istanbul

Rationale

This page is now doing a lot more than what its current title says it does. Instead of just presenting the linguistic derivation of the principal Turkish name "Istanbul", it actually discusses all the various names in all the languages involved. Which is fine, but it should be named accordingly, and the section that actually does the etymology-of-"Istanbul" thing should then be moved out of the intro into some place within the structure of the article. - Once this article has been cleaned up, we can hopefully also get a more solid consensus about what needs to be said in the lead of the main Istanbul article.

Support

• as proposed by me: Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. —Khoikhoi 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support a move to Historic Names of Istanbul and Names of Istanbul.Baristarim 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nowhere are we proposing to move the page to Present-day names of Istanbul or Modern names of Istanbul—just saying "names" doesn't mean they're used today. Also we can add a note of clarification at the top of the page if you want. —Khoikhoi 03:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, fine by me.. :) Baristarim 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Current content of Etymology of Istanbul, mostly unrelated with Etymology. To move seems logical.But, on the other hand "Historical names of Istanbul" does not cover the Etymology and other present day-working names. Also "Names of Istanbul" does not make sense about Etymology, but seems more suitable.
  I offer 3 subtitle;
  1-Etymology(including two alternative oppinions;from Stinpoli and from Konstantinopoli)
  2-Current-Modern names used in different languages
  3-Historical names used in different languages(chronologically)
  sub-sub titles may be included if necessary.

Regards. Makalp 05:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

(B) Redirect Tsargrad here

The discussion is at the talk page of Tsargrad.

Name trivia

The following was added to Constantinople by an anon user - I moved it here as it seemed like trivia in that article is more appropriate in this article? It may also be better in the article on Byzantium not sure. -- Stbalbach 16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also two traditions on the name Byzantium. The first one speaks of the city built between two "byzia" (literally meaning boobs) i.e. "wealty regions" Europe and Asia and it was called Byzantium because it was in the middle of two continents. The second one speaks of a Delphi omen saying to Vyzas "built your city close to the city of the blind". Vyzas searched for the "city of the blind", but there was no such city. When he saw the place where Byzantium was to be built he liked so much, that when he saw a city built in Asia accross the Byzantium location (Scoutari or Chrysoupoli) he said to the colonists that they should built their city there cause the "city of the blind" was in Asia already built by "blind" people unable to see the beauty of Byzantium's location.

Actually I think it belongs in Byzantium, I've moved this comment over to that talk page. -- Stbalbach 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dersaadet etc

Can anybody clarify if the alternative Ottoman names (Dersaadet, Bab-i Ali etc.) were really ever used as names for the city as such, or only as a metonymy for the Ottoman authorities located there, like English "Porte"? All three ("Gate of Felicity", "Sublime Porte", "Seat of the Throne") seem to be primarily locations within the Topkapi Palace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it refers to the imperial government and not the city. Earksiinni (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it refers to the imperial government, during the 19th and early 20th centruies, more specifically the building which housed it, now the governor's office. I am Turksih from Istanbul and I know this very well.

Ybgursey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC).

That 1930 "renaming"...

Okay, I've checked it. It's most certainly a big, well, let's say, inexactitude. Unfortunately it's one that Wikipedia seems to have done its share in perpetuating already.

There are dozens or hundreds of websites out there that talk of the city being "renamed" to Istanbul in 1930, and there are parallel claims that Ankara was "renamed" from "Angora" to Ankara at that time, and Izmir to Izmir etc.

Some of this is also perpetuated by sources like Britannica.

None of these works describes exactly what happened in 1930. What decision, made by whom, in what terms? Quotes? Cites? References? Nothing.

And none of these sources comments on the simple, obvious fact that Ottoman sources (official texts) prior to 1923 are full of just those names that allegedly were only introduced in 1930. "Ankara" (انقره), "Izmir" (ازمير), "Istanbul" (استانبول), they are all over the place. A few instances can easily be found, with PDF facsimiles, if you google for these names on "site:devletarsivleri.gov.tr".

In the case of Istanbul, matters are just a bit more complex because besides Istanbul, there were alternative equally "offical" names also in use, like "Dersaadet" and "Kostantiniyye" (the latter apparently less common than the former, in the late Ottoman era).

I checked the following sources:

• Encyclopedia of Islam
• its Turkish edition, İslam ansiklopedisi (2001)
• Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (1993)
• Various pre-1930 dictionaries of Ottoman Turkish
• Various histories of modern Turkey, among them Shaw/Shaw (1977) History of the Ottoman empire and modern Turkey; Robinson (1963) The First Turkish Republic.

I still haven't found out what exactly that decree or law or whatever that was apparently made on 28 March 1930 said and what its status was. The best I could find was a notice in Robinson (1963: 298), stating that "foreigners [were] asked to use Turkish geographical names"; and in Shaw/Shaw (1977: 386): "the use of Turkish in place of the foreign geographical names commonly in use [...] was urged on all foreign companies and embassies". Somewhere (I think it was in some Britannica page quoted on the web) it was also said that the Turkish Post office began in 1930 to refuse to deliver letters addressed to "Constantinople".

So, most likely: No "renaming" (obviously you can't "rename" something to a name it already has!), but merely a reaffirmation of the existing Turkish names, and an attempt to enforce their use in foreign languages. No change in Turkish usage itself. In the case of Istanbul, possibly combined with some act of deprecating the obsolete alternative official names such as Dersaadet, which may have held out in a few corners of bureaucratic officialese up to that point, but we don't really know that.

If Britannica thinks they can summarize that as "renaming to Istanbul", so much the worse for them, it's time we here at wikipedia get better than Britannica. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You do understand that one should be mainly researching about the usage of the English or internationally used names (e.g. in other widespread languages as French or German) of the periods in question and not the usage of the names used by Greeks-Ionians-Pontian-Christian-Ottoman-Young Turkic-Turkish-Muslim etc people during or after those periods (many times anachronistically) ... 195.93.21.73 12:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm now proposing a large-scale rewrite, with more details based on the sources I mentioned, and a restructuring to fit the proposed move to Names of Istanbul (which we should finally go ahead with). Moving the "etymology of Istanbul" section out from the intro into a sequence first of the historical names used in Greek, Latin, Turkish (and their reflexes in English); then sections on historical names in other neighbouring languages, then a short passage on usage in the modern languages. Enjoy (hopefully). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a very informative and well-done article now. --Delirium 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Calque

The article says that Kostantiniyye (Arabic القسطنطينية, al-Qusṭanṭiniyah) are calqued forms. I'm hesitant to even touch what looks like a very good article, but I don't see the calque. Am I missing something? Jd2718 12:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I chose "calque" in the sense that Kostantin-iyye appears to be a composite linguistic expression created in analogy to Konstantino-polis, where the meaning 'place-of-Konstantine' has been re-created by means of Arabic morphology. I'd call it a calque rather than simply a loan, because it apparently involves the use of Arabic grammar (word-formation rules) to create something analogous to the Greek, not just a takeover of the Greek form as is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer. I see what you are saying. Take another look at calque. I don't think that a change in ending really meets the definition. That being said, it comes pretty close, and again, the article as a whole is very strong. I hope that other editors think it over, and what they (you) decide, they decide. I will respect that and not make a change here. Regards. Jd2718 13:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Secunda vs. Nova Roma

Article currently says that Constantine first called it "Secunda Roma". But Georgacas (see biblio.) say that he ordered it to be called Νέα Ρώμη (citing Socrates, Hist. eccl. 1.16). Georgacas also says it was called Νέα Ρώμη starting in the 4th, not the 5th century. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? --Macrakis 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose I had that from the Turkish encyclopedia I was consulting, but that one was not particularly reliable about the Roman/Greek side (the author evidently knew neither of these languages). Feel free to correct it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Constantinopolis

Is this a made up word, because I have seen it before but its not in the article. Tourskin 04:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the official Latin name used by the Roman State (Latin remained the official state language also of the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire until the reign of Heraclius, when it was replaced fully by Greek, which was the more common language "in the streets" even in the time of Constantine. In any case, the word "Polis" (City) has also entered Latin from Greek, and "Constantinopolis" is the Latinized form of the Greek "Konstantinoupolis". Flavius Belisarius 05:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nova Roma / Nea Rhome vs. Constantinopolis

I was wondering about the well-known statement that Constantinople was dubbed "New Rome" (Nova Roma / Nea Rhome) by Constantine. This is something that reappears in many popular books on this subject, but what is the ultimate source for this assertion? In a comment above one Socrates is mentioned, but he was apparently born near the end of the 4th century. Now, maybe I am being too suspicious, but it seems not unthinkable that a 5th-century writer on ecclesiastical and/or political affairs who resided in Constantinople could have motives to assert the status of the Eastern capital vis-à-vis Rome by having its status enhanced in retrospect (i.e. as if Constantine would have officially transferred the status of 'old' Rome to 'new' Rome). On the other hand, coins mentioning the city's name as Constantinopolis apparently already appeared during Constantine's lifetime. (See the one in the article, which is dated in the early 330s ([6]); also Michael Grant, The climax of Rome, p. 133: "In c. 330 there were special coinages honouring _{CONSTANTINOPOLIS}; but they were paralleled by issues celebrating the City of Rome" - that last remark is also interesting in this context.) Maybe I'm just missing some obvious line of evidence. Any thoughts? (Copied to Talk:Constantinople.) Iblardi (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A source for "New Rome" is the article by Georgacas, given under "Bibliography", p. 354:

The former “Byzantion” was called Νέα Ῥώμη (translated from Nova Roma), i.e. New Rome, beginning in the fourth century A.D.;⁵⁰ this name was an official parallel to others such as simple ἡ Νέα, δευτέρα Ῥώμη, [...] . According to Socrates, Hist. eccl. 1.16, Constantine the Great himself ordered the city to be called Νέα Ῥώμη.⁵²

On the other hand, the 2005 edition of the Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum apparently states that there is no there is no evidence for the tradition that Constantine officially dubbed the city "New Rome" (Nova Roma or Nea Rhome). One may disagree about whether Socrates' assertion constitutes conclusive evidence, but in my opinion it certainly is evidence. In the footnote numbered 50 Georgacas refers for references to Pape–Benseler's Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen under Ῥώμη and adds some further references; likewise he gives some further references for his footnote 52.  --Lambiam 10:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The evidence in Socrates is not for "nea", but for "deutera". In PG 67 at least, Socrates says (sorry for the clumsy transcription): "Hèn Budzantion kaloumenèn toproteron ... Konstantinoupolin metonomasas, khrèmatidzein deuteran Rhomèn nomooi ekuroosen". Interestingly, this is translated in the accompanying Latin text as "utque nova Roma vocaretur, lege sanxit", but the Latin translation by Epiphanius Scholasticus mentioned in the apparatus has "appellari secundam Romam lege firmavit". The Greek was apparently emendated to some degree, and I do not know if this reading corresponds to that of more modern editions. Yet Socrates' use of "deutera" and not "nea" is in line with what the Reallexikon says: no evidence for an official "Nea Rhome", "Deutera Rhome" is possible. Iblardi (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Constantinople I have reproduced part of the entry in the Reallexikon, which I copy here:

"The designation of Constantinople as [a] second Rome is already found soon after the city's foundation in a poem of Optatianus Porfyrius (...), i.e. in purely rhetorical context. Possibly Constantine himself, too, in a law, of which the text is admittedly only transmitted by the church historian Socrates (...), designated the city as [a] second Rome (deutera Rhome), although never as [a] new Rome (nea Rhome (...))." Iblardi (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, so I wonder how the Reallexikon can claim "never" with such certainty. I don't have access to Pape–Benseler; I wonder what references it has that Georgacas refers to. I'd also like to remark that δεύτερα Ῥώμη can mean "the next Rome", which would have much the same sense as "the new Rome".  --Lambiam 00:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that with "never" they mean that it is not attested in any known source. According to M.A. Wes (1967), the official designation of Constantinople as a "New Rome" was first promoted after Constantine's death, by his successor Constantius (Das Ende des Kaisertums im Westen des Römischen Reichs, p. 14 ff.). Constantine was a bit more careful about this, not wanting to provoke the traditional Roman aristocracy. Wes mentions several sources, among which the passage from Socrates cited above. Also, I think having "deutera" mean the same as "nea" in order to fit Georgacas' statement would be stretching it - apart from the fact that he literally uses "nea" when referring to Socrates. I have given the quote, and it says "deuteran Rhomen". Iblardi (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Constantine didn't change the name to "New Rome." He moved the official capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to the city that he re-founded (Byzantion), and re-named as Konstantinoupolis. By moving the capital, it became the "new Rome" but not "New Rome." Any competent book on the period will explain this. Most recent cite is "Closing of the Western Mind," Freeman, Charles. 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.25.131 (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

AlAsitanah

ًWhat about the "AlAsitana[h]" الأستانة, a name by which the city is known in many historical Arabic sources; where did that come from? --Alif (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The only word that comes to my minds is Astana. The Turks gave the title "Astana Balık" which means "City that is hanged to Heavens" if there was someone holy who lived in that city. It's about some Turkic belief. If something is directly hanged to Heavens, it means it directly connected to God. It is also related to two pillars and a threshold between those two pillars. Thresholds are holy among Turks. Even today in Turkey, many people show respect to thresholds. I guess that's something complicated if this tradition still lives even in Turkey. Ancalimonungol (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Another approach from Turkish Roots

Istanbul name comes from Turkish Roots. I won't say too much, just will explain the Turkish roots. There are 2 words: ASTANA and BALIQ. ASTANA means royal and also heavenly. Pure Turkish word. During Ottoman Empire it is called as "Asitane" and Ottoman highness did say "ASITANE" for ISTANBUL. And BALIQ or BALIGH means "CITY" , it is also pure Turkish word.

ASTANA-BALIQ or if you say in Turkish ASTANA-BALIGH ( we have a special latter and sound for "GH" and people from other cultures have great difficulty with that sound).

Now just analyze it you are the conquereor nation and say "ASTANA - BALIGH" it is natural that other nations will also accept and try to say this. But they can't say some letters and will deform it. So it comes to ASTANA-BALIK then ASTANBALIK then ASTANBAL and then ISTANBAL. It is clear that during 10th century a Turkish historian "MESUDI" says that Turks says "ASTEN-BULEN" to Istanbul in his book "Efembih Vellishref".

( By the way against the idea "Turks just deformed Greek place names : There is a city in Anatolia "Balikesir ; its origin name is Balik-hisar, means "City of Castle" and pure Turkish" also "Greek foods" :) Dolma and Sarma comes from Turkish respectively comes from "to fill" and "to wrap" ) I have told these, because there is 2 cultures and each cultured received something from each other. Of course we ( Turks ) got something from Greeks and also Greeks got something from us. The other ideas are nonsense or racist ideas.

Unsourced amateur speculation. Please note that we will include only material that is referenced to reputable academic sources. Your personal guesswork has no place here, sorry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but which reputable academic sources??? These "reputable academic sources" also says Istanbul ( or Byzantinium mainly ) founded around 650-700 but recent researched ste that there were "life" up to 10000 years ago. Are these "reputable academic sources" triying to create "unique western culture" and there is no shadow on this "perfect culture". We have to discuss it. I say this "reputable academic sources" are wrong. Before Wright brothers thes "reputable academic sources" said "flight is impossible" also they said "There is no Troy in real world" also they said "We can't have subatomic paricals" , do you want me to continue about these "reputable" beliefs?????? Mseyis (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, but we have certain policies here. Please check WP:V and WP:RS. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are right because wikipedia had many wrong information in the past. And in science history it is clear that there are many wrong beliefs accepted as correct information. And please notice that I say I have references like MESUDI and IBN BATUTA who also says Turks says ISTANBUL, ASITANE or ASTANA BALIN etc. Also wikipedia must include all wievs, except "exact rules". The ethymology is not exact science. Nobody can say exact says. For some time ago, most people accepted what westerners said. But now we also reseacrh and also find new things. Now this is very serious thesis about the origin of Istanbul. So you can verify these names like IBN BATUTA and also what his called... And one more, Arabs also says "Al Asitanah" which also derivated from ASTANA, a Turkic word. I think it is the best way also publish this approach. Best regards..Mseyis (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for any unjustified skepticism, but does this theory really come from non-politicized linguistics, or does it only come from 1930's-style extreme Turkish hypernationalism (such as gave us the Sun Language Theory)? AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Up to now we don't know of any place this "theory" comes from, besides Mseyis' own imagination. Al-Masudi and Ibn Battuta are primary sources and as such not suitable as references for an etymological hypothesis. Of course, if there are some interesting name forms attested in those authors that we aren't yet dealing with, such as Al-Asitanah, that may warrant inclusion, but we must strictly abstain from speculation about any etymological connections as long as those are not sourced to reliable modern linguistic sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To AnonMoos; this is totally non-politicized approach. It is very easy to understand "hidden joke" behind your words. As you know most historical discoveries made by "Amateurs". And this is very "skeptic" approach. If you have an approach; "there is a pure, magnificent, western, Christian culture and it's origins goes to Greeks because they are also Christian and the rest are barbarians and they can't create anything only we can do and they adopt", it is very easy to accept "is tin poli" ethymology. And it is very easy to make jokes and laugh other approaches. And call them "imagination" or speculation is just an easy way. Also this is just a "folk story" of Greeks. At the start of this page, "ADAM" approached very well and indicated some nonsense points of "is tin poli" approach. This approach is built on Constantinapolis called as Poli. There is nothing about this in Bzyantium records. So this approach is based on a folk story and it is funny as "Sun Language Theory" , Isn't it AnonMoos???  :)))) Also can you imagine this scenario. You are the conqueror and you accept a nonsense word for your new capital, the Greek villagers said "is tin poli" and everybody accepted this. If you must deny Turkish ethymology, the scenario "derivied from Constantinapolis" is much more mental. Also if you consider in the Ottoman Palace, Konstantiniyye used for long time.

This is discussin forum; and even you find other approaches irresistible here.

Also, to Fut.Perf. Maybe you don't accept IBN BATUTA but just check "WIKIPEDIA"; maybe you don't realize Asitane name; (in "other Ottoman Names" ). So you accept Asitane ( and its meaning wrong there :) ) but you don't accept ASITANE BALIGH - ASTANA BALIGH. Interesting for "modern ethymology approach". I don't know your origin or profession or relation with ehymology but if you are a science woman/man, you must be open for everything, must be skeptic. We started THİS SUBJECT to move "MODERN LINGUISTIC PLATFORMS" . At some points, it started to change. Many science people says it is possible but to break preminded ideas is very difficult. Like your thoughts. Thanks a lot.Mseyis (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mseyis, it is one of the fundamental principles of this project that we are not here to develop and promote our own ideas. We are here only to summarise what the academic literature says. You are welcome to your opinion that the academic literature is wrong, but we will stick with it nevertheless, no matter what you say. If you want to convince the world of something new, you are very welcome to try and do so - but just not on this website. (see Wikipedia:No original research.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Carigrad

Hi there. There are some things about this term that puzzle me. It says in the article that it has become archaic in Serbian, Russian, Croatian, and Macedonian while it is used in Slovenian to refer to the historical city, but apparently also sometimes for the modern city. Now, I know for a fact that in Croatian terms Carigrad and also Konstantinopol are used exclusively for the historical city, former both for the Byzantine and Ottoman period, the latter solely for Byzantine times. I am not 100% sure, but it is safe to assume that it is the same in Serbian and Bosnian and very likely all other Slavic languages mentioned in the article. It is of course true that the term Carigrad for the contemporary city in Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian is obsolete and it is always referred to as Istanbul, but now comes the tricky part. The fact is that historically, that is in Ottoman times, in South Slavic lands the city was known as Stambol (duh!). I don't recall encountering Carigrad in, say, epic poetry (I could be wrong, of course, I'm not consulting any texts, I'm writing from my head, and I more than welcome any suggestions). But the fact is that Istanbul (in its archaic form) was well known and widely (if not solely) used in times for which the modern language uses the term Carigrad. There is, of course, no doubt that Carigrad is an ancient Slavic term, likely originating from the very first contacts of Slavs with the Byzantine Empire, but for what it seems to me it run out of use by the times of Turkish conquests. So, my educated guess is that the term Carigrad was reinvented during the Illyrian revival in mid 19th century, when everything that sounds ancient and Slavic was popular. Any thoughts? Zhelja (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkish pronounciation of Istanbul

It says that in Turkish it is pronounced 'İstanbul (IPA: [istàmbul])'. But why? In Turkish, the 'n' is pronounced like the 'n' in 'nay'. See 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_alphabet#Sounds'. So why is it been pronounced as İstaMbul? I've changed it in 'İstaNbul'. If this is not correct I think it would be helpful to explain why it isn't. --Robster1983 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also the translation of the Greek words 'την' and 'στην' is 'tin' and stin', with the 'ν' pronounced as an 'n'-sound. I've looked it up, and in the history of ancient Greek there hasn't been a period of time in which it was pronounced as an 'm' (as far as I could see). I've changed that also. Again, if it is not correct it would be very helpful if an explanation is added.

--Robster1983 (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In Greek, the final -n of words like tin regularly gets assimilated to [m] before an initial p- in the next word, that's a very regular process. It's also very frequent in other languages. I think in Turkish I've heard versions both with [n] and [m]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So if I'm correct: the Turkish pronounciation with an 'n' is correct (seriously, I never met any Turk that said 'IstaMbul', but I'm going there in september, so I could check it out anyhow), but the greek translation isn't? I find that quite strange, for example, the wikipedia-page on the 'ν' doesn't mention anything about it, for I think would/ could be helpful, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_(letter) . Also the latest song of Anna Vissi ("Στην πυρά"/ Sti(n) Pira) doesn't make the 'ν' sounds like an 'm', evenwhile a 'p' (often pronounced as a 'b') is followed, in fact, the 'ν' is almost non-hearable, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wA5Ets5xXE , and for the Greek lyrics: http://www.allthelyrics.com/forum/greek-lyrics-translation/63395-anna-vissi-sti-pira.html ) .

So if your point can/could be proven then as far as I'm concerned, I think it is solved.

--Robster1983 (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

See more at Modern Greek phonology, you can find it described in any reference grammar of modern Greek. You are right, calling the result an [m] is a little bit of an oversimplification -- it's variable, and it's often reduced to just a slight pre-nasalisation of the following consonant (which, as you rightly noticed, regularly gets voiced). But whatever it is, it tends to become bilabial, not alveolar, so it's closer to an [m] than to an [n]. -- I'm not sure what you meant by saying that the Greek translation "isn't correct"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the 'ν' sounds more like an 'n', and the phonetic IPA translation was 'not correct', and to explain that point, I referred to the last/ that one single of Anna Vissi. But to be honest, the only way I can translate the Greek language, is because I have many Greek artists in my cd/iPod/iTunes-collection, and because I always want to know what they sing, I always turn to allthelyrics.com/forum. Via those ways I reckon the way Greek people pronounce the Greek letters in the Greek alphabet. But since that is the only way I reckon some Greek words, I am the last to say that I know evereything about the Greek language. :) I was just wondering why the words 'την' and 'στην' were translated in IPA with an 'm' sound, for even when a word that begins with an 'p' follows it is always (in my music, at least) been 'tin/stin'. But hey, isn't this almost the same as with how people translate the Greek 'Γ/γ'? I always seem to reckon a 'soft-g' sound in it, like they speak in the Southern part of the Netherlands, Flanders, and near the Dutch-German border on both sides (I assume you're from Germany, since your mother tongue is German?). But officially it is pronounced as the 'j'-sound as in Dutch and German 'ja' (as has been said to me by a Greek person from the Makedonian-region in Greece, so perhaps even that plays a role). --Robster1983 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

With the gamma, both versions exist, it depends on context. It's your "soft g" before back vowels (a, o, u), and the "j" sound before front vowels (e, i). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek 'nu' was never pronounced as an 'm' sound. However, an 'n' before certain letters will often morph into an 'm' sound. In Latin, the prefix is 'in,' the terminal sound pronounced as an 'n.' However, over time, "in-bibo" to "drink in" became "im-bibo," and hence the modern word "imbibe." Or, "in-press" became "impress."

An "N" before the letters "B" and "P" is particularly likely to end up being pronounced as "M." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.25.131 (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lygos" etymology

About these [7] reverts:

Raymond Janin was a reputed scholar with specialized publications on the history of Constantinople and the history of Thracia. His book cited, Janin, Raymond (1964). Constantinople byzantine. Paris: Institut Français d'Études Byzantines. p. 10., is most certainly a reliable source.

Janin says: [10]"On a trouvé à la Pointe du Sérail [...] de nombreux débris de céramique protocorinthienne. Il y avait là un centre qui semble correspondre au Lygos dont parle Pline l'Ancien [...] Les populations qui habitaient les rives du Posphore étaient thraces, au dire des historiens. Thraces sont les noms de leurs villes et de leurs sites: Bosphore, Byzance, Mucaporis, etc. Thraces étaient les divinités qu'ils vénéraient. [...]
[11] En réalité le mot Byzance est d'origine thrace et n'a rien de mégarien. Il faut le rapprocher des autres noms thraces, Βυζία, Βύζηρες, Βυζαντίς, et du nom de Barbyzès (Βαρβύζης). Il a donc été donné avant l'arrivée des Grecs. Ceux-ci, en s'installant dans la petite cité thrace, n'ont pu faire disparaître complètement l'ancien état des choses. Ils ont dû composer avec l'élément indigène." Thus, he clearly confirms: (a) that the inhabitants of the place before the Megarian colonization were Thracians, (b) that Lygos was a Thracian settlement ("la petite cité thrace" refers back to "un centre qui semble correspondre au Lygos" a few lines further up); and (c) that the placenames in the region, in general, were Thracian (even though he doesn't explicitly mentions Lygos again in that sentence, the scope of the sentence is clearly such that it includes the place he just mentioned in the preceding sentence.)

In contrast, Scarlatos Byzantios, from 1851(!), is most certainly not a reliable source. We have no indication that this person knew anything about modern linguistics, which at that time was a new, developing science, and he could not possibly have known anything about Thracian placename etymologies, because the foundational linguistic works in that field were only written much later. The identification of the Lygos placename with the homonymous Greek plant name is evidently nothing but a naive folk etymology. Calling this author reliable simply because he was "a Greek scholar who lived there" [8] is outrageous, even for Euzen's standards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I got news for you, Future: Prof. Erendiz ÖZBAYOGLU claims that she knows better than the French priest. (E Y Ü P S U L T A N S Y M P O S I A I - V I I I : S E L E C T E D A R T I C L E S p. 221.) She says that the word Lygos is of the same origin with other toponyms such as Lygii, Ligures and Lugdunum and refers to the swampy region. She is not supposed to know the Greek towns of Ligourion, Lygia etc, common toponyms. She also sums various opinions on the origin of the name Byzantium, including the byssos (depth of sea, abyss) found in Homer. She doesn't say anything about Thracean settlement, since there are no archaeological evidences on the first settlers (stating the obvious, i.e. Thracean is the one who settles in Thrace, is not enough to make an author "reliable").

The etymology of Byzantium from Byzas and this from the nympgh Bizye is also found in this publication. For those who want to search more, look up in Pokorny's IE Etymological Dictionary for Root / lemma: b(e)u-2, bh(e)ū̆- (to swell, puff) which is the origin of the Gr. βυζί(ον) (breast). Bizye was the nymph who fed Byzas.
I trust your expertise to incorporate this info in the article. The opinion of Sc. Byzantios can also be added as "according to". Some will find interesting the scenario that a "thracean" settlement may have a Greek name. --Euzen (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. And you think the Özbayoğlu article contradicts Janin or Georgacas? Read again. You don't really understand much about placename etymologies, do you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A short excerpt from the erudite paper of Prof. ÖZBAYOGLU cited above (page 5) "...In Rome, at the end of the 3rd century, Kosmas and Damianos, two Muslim doctors who died for Islam were recognized anargyroi, “moneyless” saints because they treated gratis their patients. The church, which was constructed during the time of Theodosius, in the middle of the 5th century" (italics is mine). What does it mean? Who wrote this crap? I think that the Rev. Raymond Janin is twisting in his tomb... Alex2006 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, LOL. Quite a gaffe, indeed. No, it's not a particularly good article. The etymology stuff she mentions comes nowhere close to the depth of even the Georgacas paper from 1947. Fut.Perf. ☼

For certain users no source is too irrelevant if supports that something is non-Greek. On the other hand, everything counts as a source if supports that something is Albanian.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is not relevancy, but rather reliability. A source that pretends that two christian Saints were "Muslim Doctors who died for Islam" a couple of hundred years before the birth of Mohammed can be used with some success as inspiration for an alternate history novel, but not more than that. Alex2006 (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

After the first laugh, I suspected that this may be the result of some kind of hacking, since the above source is published in a non-academic site. At least there is a real Professor Erendiz Ozbayoglu who has an international recognition, as it appears from her participation in scientific congresses like this while her name appears as reference in many books. Fortunatelly, another prof. from the same university in the same event restores Kosmas and Damianos as Christians, thus making my assumption of hacking plausible: The church of Koscas & Damian church in Eyup. I didn't check all this text, though, which may reserve some more grotesque from turko-muslim nationalists. After all, a former Turkish president had set the example by claiming that Homer was a ... Turk.  :) --Euzen (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking also the same. Ok, mistaking Theodosius for Theodosius II is a mistake, but the story about the Saints of Islam is just crazy. Anyway, this is not the first time that I read something fool on a Turkish paper. On the Catalog of the great (and beautiful) exhibition held in Istanbul in 2010 about the city, the most distinguished Turkish Art Historian of the last decades wrote that Istanbul is the only modern city which has kept the ancient walls intact... As Roman, I could only laugh :-) anyway, I will read the new article in the next days, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There are etymological informations for all the other names, why not for "Lygos"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 08:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrected the transliteration

Just changed the Persian/Arabic spelling of the city, both of them have the same transliteration. Some information is mentioned in the edit summary. My edits are being examined by my mentor @Irondome: Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Junshitandingbao 君士坦丁堡"

It should be pointed out that "Junshitandingbao" is the Mandarin pronunciation of 君士坦丁堡, but not the only way to read it. Given that "君" sounds like "kun" in Cantonese, it's probably closer to what the translator intended to sound like. Ahyangyi (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Names of Istanbul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170101063545/http://www.masseiana.org/pliny.htm to http://www.masseiana.org/pliny.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"On this day" entries

It's quite unfortunate that this article has now repeatedly been listed in an "On this day" section on the mainpage, with the claim that "The name of Turkey's largest city was changed from Constantinople to Istanbul" on 28 March 1930. It can't be repeated often enough: There was no changing of the name of the city in 1930 or indeed at any other time; it had been called Istanbul since time immemorial; the only thing that may have happened in 1930 was that Turkish authorities asked people to start using the Turkish name in foreign languages. Also, there is only extremely slim evidence that any of this happened on this specific day in 1930, and no sourcing whatsoever about what exactly supposedly happened on that day. Of the two sources cited for the relevant sentence, one (Shaw) doesn't mention this date at all, and the other (the National Geographic piece) is a blatantly unreliable junk article (with factual howlers about all sorts of other issues, like "Ancient Greeks … called it Lygos", or, even worse: "… after the Greeks and Romans were forced out by the indigenous Ottoman Turks in about 1299". Its reference to 1930 is almost certainly a case of WP:citogenesis. As discussed at length in sections above, the only legitimate source we ever found that mentions 28 March (though without explaining what precisely happened on that day) is the Robinson (1963) book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Well said, except that Turkish authorities started asking foreigners to call it Istanbul in late 1929. It was widely reported in newspapers. I found The Manchester Guardian, Nov 15 and Nov 16; NYT Nov 15; The Observer Nov 19; and a bunch of minor papers. However, none of these reports say that the official name was changed and some say that it was long called Istanbul in Turkish. According to NYT Nov 22 1929, it was all sparked by a letter addressed to "Constantinople Byzantium" and the Turkish post office announced that such mail would not be delivered. This was interpretted in the Western press as a ruling that all mail addressed to Constantinople would be returned, but that was denied by the Turkish post office by Nov 21. I didn't find any mention of something happening around Mar 28 1930. Zero^talk 13:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Eldem Edhem's encyclopedia article states that indeed "Istanbul" had been used for a long time but it originally only referred to the places in the old city walls, meaning Scutari (Uskudar), Galata (now Karaköy), and Eyup were not counted as "Istanbul". The Ottoman Turkish Ottoman Constitution of 1876 does specify that "Istanbul" is the capital of the empire while the French version (the basis of Western/Christian language versions) stated "Constantinople". In the pre-1923/1930s Western language usage "Stamboul" was the name used for the walled city while the entire city was under "Constantinople". Edhem wrote "With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, all previous names were abandoned and Istanbul came to designate the entire city." The article is from the 2010 work Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire by Infobase Publishing. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure to what extent that is relevant. All major cities have grown to envelop suburbs that were previously not part of them. The fact that Galata wasn't part of Istanbul is no different from the fact that Westminster wasn't part of London, and Brooklyn wasn't part of New York City. What would make a bit of a difference would be if there was evidence that the "narrow" meaning of "Istanbul" systematically contrasted with a "wider" meaning of whatever other names existed in Ottoman Turkish, e.g. "Kostantiniyye", but I don't think I've seen such. In any case, this is hardly relevant to the question of what (if anything) happened specifically in 1930, is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Evidence of "Constantinople" vs. "Stamboul/Istanbul", I think it would be helpful to see if Elhem Edhem could be contacted as he might know of some things. This page lists his e-mail as does this page. Contemporary sources on the matter would be good too, and some should be publicly online. Western sources do matter as this encyclopedia is written in English and has English-speaking audiences in mind. However I am interested in whether the same distinction held in Ottoman Turkish. In any case it's a slightly different scenario than Brooklyn and Westminster as those two became parts of New York and London while Stamboul/Istanbul became the entire city that Constantinople/Konstantiniyye originally referred to.

• Example of Western usage: Pears, Sir Edwin. The Fall of Constantinople: Being the Story of the Fourth Crusade. Longmans, Green and Company, 1885. p. 178: "The Turks allow a few foreigners to have their warehouses in Stamboul, but will not permit them to reside there. All the embassies and legations are in Pera, that is, across the water[...]or at Galata, which is part of what was originally called Pera."

Anyway I cited the Edhem article as it's a clue that something happened between 1923 and the 1930s. What would help settle this would be doing more research, and I would appreciate copies of the sources Zero0000 mentioned.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I got some excellent info from Zero! One piece is that the US State Department signed dispatches to Constantinople in 1929, but to Istanbul in 1930. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting, but yes, we knew that foreign embassies were asked to make that change at somewhere around that time. The examples are well before 28 March though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Haven't found anything for March yet, though May 1930 was when the US State Department switched to Istanbul from Constantinople WhisperToMe (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Also an NYT article from 1929 (also at Salt Research) stated: For it must be remembered that "Istambul" (our usual form for the word is "Stamboul") has always been the Turkish name for the whole of Constantinople, and has been applied, even by Occidentals, to that part of the city on the Golden Horn which is its most Turkish quarter." WhisperToMe (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'm in communication with Dr. Edhem over e-mail and he had stated that legally/formally the distinction existed in Turkish but popularly people already started calling the whole city Istanbul. If you like I can forward correspondence or make further inquiries. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)