Anglicised names

> Cristoforo Colombo
true but he went by signing Cristobal Colon

>>2055381
Martin Luther = Martín Lutero
Checkmate anglos

William Shakespeare = Guillermo Sacudelanzas
anglos BTFO

File: Da bawls.jpg (18KB, 258x258px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 258x258px

>>2055381
Watch it Chrissy

>>2055381
George Washington = Jorge Washingclothes
wtf

>>2055381
>Cristoforo Colombo
He never called himself like that autistic Italian

>>2055443
More like Jorge Lavandero

>>2055393
>>2055394
>>2055404
You are all proving my point

Why are old figures like Columbus referred to in local languages, but more modern figures aren't?

>>2055460
Ah you're right, just read his Wikipedia page a bit more and his native language was Genoese, in which his name was "Christoffa Corombo"

But he never wrote in Genoese, only in Latin, in which his name was "Christophorus Columbus"

So the question still stands - why is he referred to in local language approximations of his name, rather than the Genoese or Latin version? Guillermo del Toro isn't called "William of Bull" by English speakers is he?

>>2055515
We don't call them as the other guy said, Shakespeare in spanish still Shakespeare and the same with the other except for Cristobal Colon and Lutero

>>2055443
More like Jorge Lavandería

>>2055547
>We don't call them as the other guy said, Shakespeare in spanish still Shakespeare and the same with the other except for Cristobal Colon and Lutero

That's exactly my point, Shakespeare is called Shakespeare everywhere, and so are most other figures past a certain point of history.

It seems to be older historical figures that are referred to in local language approximations. E.g. Saint Thomas Aquinas, who again we refer to with an anglicised name, instead of the original Italian, "Tommaso d'Aquino". Same with St. Anselm of Canterbury, who in the original Italian is "Anselmo d'Aosta".

Why is this?

I guess perhaps it's because medieval scholars had a convention of translating foreign names into their native languages. So the reason we still call Thomas Aquinas that today, instead of Tommaso d'Aquino, is because the medieval English literature that referred to him used the name "Thomas Aquinas".

And then I guess somewhere along the way, as the world become more international, the convention for translating names was dropped, and people just referred to foreign persons using their foreign names.

I still find it odd though. It's the same with monarchs, too. E.g. we refer to King Charles I of Hungary, but of course he wasn't called Charles at all, he was called Károly. Charles is just the anglicised translation that only English scholars would have used - nobody actually referred to him, in person, as "Charles". So it is a bit misleading and confusing.

So maybe we should reverse that medieval convention of translating names, and refer to people in their original names. Like we do these days. So just as we don't refer to Cristiano Ronaldo as "Christopher Ronald", we should refer to Christopher Columbus as "Christoffa Corombo", or the Latin "Christophorus Columbus". Calling him "Christopher Columbus" gives a misleading impression that people addressed him with that name, but they most likely never did.

>>2055515
>just read his Wikipedia
Dropped. He also wrote in Spanish. No one knows his birthplace. A shit tone of places claim that he was born there

>>2055469
who was a Chilean politician condemned for child abuse

mmm

>>2055381
Not knowng his real name is Pedro.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Madruga