I heart William Safire: Part Deux

When I was a model UN geek, we went back and forth over Burma/Myanmar - if only Mr. Safire had weighed in earlier:

In 2004, The Times decided to go along with the decision made nearly a decade before by local and national Indian authorities. The paper’s updated style manual decreed: “Mumbai, formerly Bombay. Gracefully remind readers of the former name of the Indian city when necessary.” Craig Whitney, The Times’s standards editor (to whom the wise and honest writers can repair), says: “In 2004, we decided to call it what it was calling itself. If you’ve tried to fly to Bombay on any airline over the past six years, you would find yourself looking up fares and schedules to Mumbai. Clearly, we waited long enough to see if it was sticking.”

Whitney adds: “In general, after a decent interval we call places what they call themselves — Ho Chi Minh City instead of Saigon, Myanmar instead of Burma, Frankfurt instead of Frankfort, etc., though on those first two (and perhaps on Mumbai as well) there are people who object for political reasons.”

The potential for commercial fallout exists. Will Bollywood become Mumblywood? Will the global acceptance of Mumbai — from the Marathi name of the goddess Mumbadevi — by media standard-bearers affect the Bombay Company, a U.S. outfit that sells furniture? Or to Bombay Sapphire gin? (I recommend “Mumbai Safire gin.”) Spokesmen for both companies refuse to speak for the record, but I take it that neither company is thinking of a name change, because they don’t want to confuse customers. The name of a place may be subject to transformation by its residents, but a brand is a brand.

Mumbai, not Bombay [NYT]
Previously: I heart William Safire