1500 California Place Names. William Bright

      THIS BOOK IS the descendant of several others. In 1947, the University of California Press published a small book called 1000 California Place Names, by Professor Erwin G. Gudde, of the University of California at Berkeley. In 1949, the Press published a larger volume, reporting in full on Gudde’s place-name research up to that time; the title of that work was California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. The success of both those books warranted updated versions in the following years: second and third editions of the “small book” were published in 1949 and 1971, while a second edition of the “big book” appeared in 1960, and a third in 1969—the year of Gudde’s death. Most recently, I have myself carried out a new updating of Gudde’s “big book,” which will appear as a revised fourth edition in 1998, with Gudde named as author and myself as editor. A special effort was made in this new edition not only to incorporate fresh data on California place names in general, but also to give more reliable information on names of Native American origin, based on recent field research by linguists and anthropologists working with living speakers of California Indian languages.

      In preparing a new “small book,” the present 1500 California Place Names, I wanted to produce a book on California place-name origins that, like Gudde’s 1000 California Place Names, would be attractive to Californians and convenient to use. For this reason, the book is restricted to two classes of names: first, those that are “famous” because they refer to well-known geographical features of the state, like San Diego, Tahoe, and Yreka; and second, those that may refer to lesser-known locations but are “of interest” because of their problematic origins, especially when they derive from Spanish—names like Arrastre, Bodega, and Chamisal—or from American Indian languages—names like Chirpchatter, Loleta, and Cuyamaca. (A few names have gone through both Indian and Spanish versions; in Santa Barbara County, the Chumash name kalawashaq, meaning “turtle shell,” was reinterpreted as Spanish calabazal, “pumpkin patch,” before entering English as the name of Calabazal Creek.) For the large number of names that fall “in the middle”—places like Johnsondale and Johnstonville and Johnsville—readers are directed to the fourth edition of the “big book,” California Place Names.

      In addition to place names, this book also includes names of the major Indian tribes of California. Some of these have themselves been adapted as place names, and others are referred to as the sources of place names.

      I should make it clear that 1500 California Place Names is not simply an expansion of the earlier “small book”; rather, it is a new work, based on the information that I gathered for the larger work. Of course I am indebted, above all, to the earlier work by Gudde; but in addition I must express my gratitude to the many people who provided new information when I was carrying out that revision. One group consists of several dozen local historians, authors, government employees, teachers, librarians, and knowledgeable California residents; I have thanked them by name in the larger volume. A second group consists of my fellow specialists in California Indian languages, and I wish to repeat my thanks to the following scholars in particular: Catherine Callaghan, Catherine Fowler, Victor Golla, Margaret Langdon, John McLaughlin, Pamela Munro, Robert Oswalt, Alice Shepherd, and William Shipley. Responsibility for all use of published or unpublished material is, of course, mine alone.

      I have tried to provide information on the local pronunciations of place names, employing a system of phonetic transcription familiar from most English dictionaries. However, it is often difficult to fix upon a single “correct” pronunciation. In California and the Southwest, this problem arises especially with regard to names of Spanish origin. The word cañada, “valley,” is pronounced in Spanish approximately as kahn YAH dhah, but such an utterance is rarely heard among Californians who are speaking English. What one hears, of course, is a range of pronunciations, including kuhn YAH duh, kuhn YAD uh, kuh NAH duh, and KAN uh duh; and all these must be recognized. None are incorrect, but they are used by people with different social backgrounds and attitudes—conservative or innovative, Anglo oriented or Hispano oriented. By contrast, a conceivable pronunciation like kuh NAY duh simply does not occur among local residents; it could be used only by the greenest newcomer.

      With regard to Native American origins of place names, it has to be acknowledged that some are not fully understood and are likely to remain forever obscure—especially in the long-missionized southern and central areas of California. Many of the original languages are no longer spoken, and the cultures have dwindled. But the California Indian people are still our neighbors, and we live on sites that were founded by their ancestors. The names that those ancestors gave to California places are still on our tongues.

       William Bright

Скачать книгу