Posted by Adam Quinan on June 27, 2006 at 02:35:58 from 72.136.51.111 user Adam.
In Reply to: Re: Kanchenjunga! (was Kanchenjunga or Kangchenjunga) posted by John on June 27, 2006 at 00:19:16:
I don't know what point you are trying to prove but it isn't answering mine.
All I am trying to find is evidence that Ransome was perverse in choosing a spelling that was obviously wrong and incorrect in 1930. I am suggesting that Kanchenjunga was a perfectly acceptable and probably the most common English spelling of the Tibetan word used to describe the mountain in 1930. So if we find that Time, the London Times and New York Times all use it, then that would demonstrate to me that was the spelling commonly used by educated people in 1930. If it is only Ransome and no one else (except Time magazine and the New York Times where I have found the usage in their on-line archives), then he had an amazing influence on the language because that is now still the most common spelling foundon Google.
I am not trying to prove that Kanchenjunga is necessarily the "best" spelling of the Tibetan word, we have the words of the King of Sikkim that it isn't either Kanchenjunga or Colonel Weir's Kangchenjunga, which is also incorrect but not quite so incorrect.
So far you have quoted people who say that Kangchenjunga is more correctly spelled Tibetan than Kanchenjunga, I am not arguing that point, I concede it to you wholeheartedly, now please answer my point and show me where it can be found that Ransome would have obviously known that Kanchenjunga was wrong but chose to use the word anyway.