[The first part of this post is from an anonymous contributor.]<\/p>\n
The Serbian legation in London complains to the media<\/a> about the spelling Servia, which is 'highly offensive to our people'.<\/p>\n (It is true that there is a place in Greece called 'Servia<\/a>', whose name 'derives from the Latin verb servo, meaning \"to watch over\"'.)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Chinese for 'Serbia', 'Sai'erweiya' \u585e\u723e\u7dad\u4e9e is obviously derived from 'Servia', not 'Serbia' (which latter would have been 'Sai'erbiya'). But, where did English get 'Servia' anyway?<\/p>\n Background to the 'Servia\/Sai'erweiya' transcription:<\/p>\n The pronunciation of standard Chinese, as mediated by the hanographs anyway,<\/p>\n 1) has no [v]; [w] is the closest thing<\/p>\n 2) has no [wi]; [wei] is the closest thing<\/p>\n 3) has no monophthong [\u025b]; [aj] is the closest thing<\/p>\n 4) requires [\u0259] before [\u0279]<\/p>\n 'Servia' is a 'historical English term, taken from Greek language, used in relation with Serbia, Serbs or the Serbian language', says Wikipedia<\/a>.<\/p>\n But since when does English go and transcribe old words from Greek with beta as <v> instead of just transliterating as <b>?<\/p>\n In Koine beta<\/a> was already [v]:<\/p>\n The consonants [of Koine Greek] also preserved their ancient pronunciations to a great extent, except \u03b2, \u03b3, \u03b4, \u03c6, \u03b8, \u03c7 and \u03b6. \u0392, \u0393, \u0394, which were originally pronounced \/b \u0261 d\/, became the fricatives \/v\/ (via [\u03b2]), \/\u0263\/, \/\u00f0\/, which they still are today, except when preceded by a nasal consonant (\u03bc, \u03bd); in that case, they retain their ancient pronunciations (e.g. \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 [\u0263ambros], \u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 [andras], \u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 [a\u014b\u0261elos]). The latter three (\u03a6, \u0398, \u03a7), which were initially pronounced as aspirates (\/p\u02b0 t\u02b0 k\u02b0\/ respectively), developed into the fricatives \/f\/ (via [\u0278]), \/\u03b8\/, and \/x\/. Finally \u03b6, which is still metrically categorised as a double consonant with \u03be and \u03c8 because it was initially pronounced as \u03c3\u03b4 (sd), later acquired its modern-day value of \/z\/.[9]<\/p>\n But English has 'Bartholomew' and 'Bosphorus', not 'Vartholomew' and 'Vosphorus' .<\/p>\n Wikipedia also says<\/a> of names of Serbia (historical renderings in other languages):<\/p>\n —————— The following is by VHM:<\/p>\n The pronunciation with \"v\" was not just in English, but also in modern French.\u00a0 See the first page of Journal de l'Orne<\/a> (pdf) (August 22, 1914), under the column titled \"Memento de la Guerre\"), July 21.\u00a0 It is curious, however, that for July 23, 24, 26, and 28, the name is spelled \"Serbie\".<\/span><\/p>\n In a recent post<\/a>, I cited a valuable discussion on the pronunciation and spelling of \"asterisk\" in English Language & Usage Stack Exchange.<\/p>\n The same forum also took up the question about \"Servia\" and \"Serbia\" raised above in a discussion initiated on 8\/27\/15:<\/p>\n \"Why did Servia become Serbia?<\/a> \"<\/p>\n This discussion begins with the observation that, at the start of the First World War, the nation in the Balkans was referred to as Servia<\/em>, but in \"numbers\" [sic<\/i>] published after the second half of 1916, it became Serbia<\/em>.\u00a0 I suspect that this dramatic change (as shown in an accompanying Google NGrams chart) was the result of the 1915 initiative of the Serbian government reported in this article from the New Zealand <\/span>North Otago Times<\/i>, Volume CI, Issue 13235, 5 March 1915, Page 7:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n——————<\/p>\n