Summary %e past century has witnessed a striking change in the representation of Slovenia’s traditional regions in English texts. After the Second World War, Slovenians progressively replaced the traditional English exonyms for these regions with endonyms in English texts. %is trend was accompanied by published works and teaching practice that increasingly insisted on the exclusive use of endonyms in English texts. However, following the dissolution of Yugoslavia and Slovenian independence, there has been a return to the traditional English exonyms. %is article maps this changing practice through selected English texts from the past three centuries. It also addresses a number of pitfalls connected with the use of endonyms as well as persistent questions regarding the use of endonyms. Because English is a global language, the choices made by those writing in English directly affect how Slovenia and Slovenian identity are represented at the global level. As such, the conclusions of this paper apply directly to Slovenian-English translation practice and indirectly to Slovenian literature and culture conveyed through English translation. Key words: Slovenia, Carniola, toponym, exonym, endonym Povzetek V zadnjem stoletju smo bila priča izrazitim spremembam v poimenovanju tradicionalnih slovenskih pokrajin v angleških besedilih. Po drugi svetovni vojni so Slovenci že ustaljene angleške eksonime za te pokrajine v angleških besedilih postopoma zamenjali z endonimi. T ej smeri razvoja so sledila tudi objavljena dela in pedagoška praksa, ki so vedno bolj vztrajali pri tem, da se v angleških besedilih uporabljajo izključno endonimi. Po razpadu Jugoslavije in osamosvojitvi Slovenije pa so se ustaljeni eksonimi začeli ponovno uporabljati. Članek orisuje to spreminjajočo se prakso na podlagi izbranih angleških besedil iz zadnjih treh stoletij. Poleg tega se osredotoča tudi na številne probleme, povezane z rabo endonimov, ter na nenehna vprašanja glede rabe endonimov. Ker je angleščina svetovni jezik, izbire tistih, ki pišejo v angleščini, neposredno vplivajo na to, kako sta Slovenija in slovenska narodna identiteta predstavljeni na svetovni ravni. Zaključki se nanašajo neposredno na prakso prevajanja slovenskih besedil v angleščino, posredno pa tudi na slovensko književnost in kulturo, predstavljeno v angleških prevodih. Ključne besede: Slovenija, zemljepisno ime, eksonim, endonim DOI: 10.4312/elope.7.2.125-138 %e past century has seen a striking change in the representation of Slovenia’s traditional regions in English texts. After the Second World War, Slovenians progressively replaced the traditional English names for these regions (e.g. Upper Carniola, Styria, etc.), which had been used for centuries, with Slovenian names (i.e. Gorenjska, Štajerska, etc.) in English texts. 1 However, following the dissolution of Yugoslavia and Slovenian independence, there has been a return to the traditional English names. %is paper examines this change and subsequent reversal, and the reasons underlying it. For clarity, the terms endonym and exonym, which are used extensively in this paper, are explained here. Endonyms are insiders’ names – topographic names used by the people that live in or near a particular place. Exonyms are outsiders’ names – topographic names used by people that do not live in or near a particular place. In cases of multilingualism, places may have more than one endonym (e.g. Koper and Capodistria). Multiple endonyms may also reflect monolingual synonymy (e.g. Polhograjsko hribovje ‘Polhov Gradec Hills’ and Polhograjski Dolomiti ‘Polhov Gradec Dolomites’). Places also often have multiple exonyms; for example, the name Vienna (e.g. Slovenian Dunaj, Croatian Beč, Czech Vídeň, etc.). Some exonyms are also orthographically identical but phonologically distinct (e.g. English Paris // for French Paris //) or orthographically near-identical (e.g. English Novo Mesto 2 and Slovenian Novo mesto). One consistent pattern in the use of exonyms is that they reflect linguistic centrality. Table 1 presents selected regions in Europe that have either central or peripheral status in Slovenian and English. Central Peripheral Endonym Slovenian English Endonym = Slo = Eng Bayern Bavarska Bavaria Baden-Württemberg Kärnten Koroška Carinthia Vorarlberg Sardegna Sardinija Sardinia Aosta My comments and examples throughout this article generally default to ‘Carniola’ and ‘Upper Carniola’; however, they apply equally to all traditional Slovenian regions. I first became aware of this issue when I started working as a translator in Slove- nia about a decade ago. Having written in a document, I was informed by a senior translator that I should only use such names for historical references, and not for modern Slovenia. Worse yet, I was advised to use rather than in English (cf. § 2.4). The English exonym is not based on centrality/prestige, but on conformity to English orthographic conventions. Cataluña Katalonija Catalonia Extremadura Bourgogne Burgundija Burgundy Auvergne %is is not to say that the peripheral regions are less worthy in any way (for example, I’ve been to Aosta and recommend it highly, even though I have no special English name for the region). Rather, they are simply more peripheral in the mental map of language communities that have no exonyms for them. Of course, these are historically and culturally bound concepts and differ from language to language; for example, Vietnamese simply calls Bavaria by the endonym Bayern (indicating that it played no important role in Vietnamese history and culture); correspondingly, Slovenian refers to nearby Friuli and Veneto with exonyms (Furlanija, Benečija), whereas English simply uses the endonyms. %e same pattern of centrality versus peripherality is seen in names of settlements, presented in Table 2. Central Peripheral Endonym Slovenian English Endonym = Slo = Eng Genève Ženeva Geneva Versoix Wien Dunaj Vienna Schwechat Venezia Benetke Venice Mestre Warszawa Varšava Warsaw Zielonka Bucureşti Bukarešta Bucharest Pipera %e comments regarding regions also apply to these settlements. In both cases, exonyms may be simple respellings (e.g. Varšava ‘Warsaw’) or may be completely different lexemes (e.g. Dunaj ‘Vienna’). Analyzing and classifying degrees of exonyms is not relevant to this paper. %e point is that regions and towns (and, for that matter, any other toponym class) that are referenced with an exonym are so referenced because of their cultural importance, whether this is due to history, culture, or simply proximity. T oponyms that do not enjoy exonym status are often culturally unimportant. %ese opposing associations are summarized in Table 3. Exonym Endonym Central Peripheral Familiar Unfamiliar Important Unimportant High value Low value %e following examples show representative usage of exonyms and endonyms in English for traditional Slovenian regions through time. Because they are selected from material that happened to be readily available, rather than an exhaustive survey, they are simply indications of usage; that is, this information cannot be quantified in any way. %e chronologically ordered examples are grouped into older material, interwar material, the early communist era, the late communist era, and the post-communist era. %ere is no dispute regarding the pedigree of English exonyms for the traditional regions of Slovenia. In a selection of pre–First World War works produced (i.e. written or translated) by native English speakers, for example, one finds the following examples: (1) . . . a neighbouring Ridge of Mountains that ſeems to ſeparate Carniola from Carinthia. (Osborne 1745, 385) (2) In ſeveral Parts of this Dutchy, particularly in Upper Carniola, Scorpions abound, and great Quantities are exported from hence. (Keysler 1758, 217) (3) In the year 1541 the Lutherans of Auſtria, Stiria, Carinthia and Carniola preſented a pathetic petition . . . (Büsching 1762, 152) (4) Indian corn and gourds in Carniola and Styria . . . (Cadell 1820, 335) (5) . . . the corner-stone of Carinthia, Carniola, and of Styria . . . (Gilbert & Churchill 1864, 273) (6) . . . several animals, belonging to the most different classes, which inhabit the caves of Carniola and Kentucky, are blind. (Darwin 1872, 110) (7) . . . %e train crosses the Schwarzenbach, then the Weissenbach, which forms the frontier of Carniola and Carinthia . . . (Baedecker 1903, 529) (8) At the head of almost every village in Lower Styria and Carniola . . . (1913, 446) When Slovenian endonyms are found in such older material, they were generally consciously used and labelled as such: (9) Upper-Carniola, commonly called Gorenska Stran. (Büsching 1762, 210) English practice did not change during the interwar period; for example: (10) . . . at the western extremity of the Alps is the low pass over the limestone plateau of Carniola in the Julian Alps . . . (Hyde 1935, 176) (11) Out of six skulls from Carniola, three are round headed and one is mesocephalic. (Coon 1939, 184) When discussing the interwar period, special mention should be made of the Slovenian-American writer Louis Adamic (1898–1951), who probably did more to raise consciousness of Yugoslavia and Slovenia, at least in the American popular press, than any other writer of his time. It is interesting that he consistently used the exonym Carniola but the endonym Bela Krajina; the latter probably simply indicates that he was unaware of the English name White Carniola: (12) Carniola seemed so very, very small. (Adamic 1934, 14) (13) . . . the little city of Lublyana, 3 the capital of Carniola . . . (Adamic 1938, 123) (14) . . . one of our relative’s vineyards in Bela Krayina . . . (Adamic 1934, 26) (15) . . . from Bela Krayina people began to emigrate to America . . . (Adamic 1938, 125) In the post–Second World War era, native English material continued its tradition of using exonyms. For example, one finds: (16) . . . from Carinthia or Styria where there were more Germans or Austrians, but some districts of Carniola lost as much as 12 per cent of their population . . . (Schermerhorn 1949, 364) (17) . . . with the exception of Carniola, decisive Slovenian influence was limited to local governments. (Hočevar 1965, 103) One very early exception was de Bray’s guide to the Slavic languages, which exclusively used endonyms (and in the neuter form to boot): (18) . . . the dialect of Dolẹnjsko . . . with a borrowing of the pure vowels of the dialect of Gorẹnjsko (de Bray 1951, 378) However, de Bray’s use of accentuation here and elsewhere (e.g. “. . . set up by the Znânstveno drûštvo in Ljubljána” 1951, 368) probably indicates that he was citing these as foreign words despite the lack of italics. Usage by Slovenians writing English also showed no change from earlier English practice; for example, in a trilingual travel guide: (19) . . . the pellucid River Sava rushes down the walley [sic] of Upper Carniola . . . (Ljubljanski 1956, 11) (20) . . . in [sic] pleasant scenery of Lower Carniola . . . (Ljubljanski 1956, 177) (21) . . . all [sic] Bela Krajina is studded with partisan monuments and tablets [sic] . . . (Ljubljanski 1956, 183) It is noteworthy that this source, like the examples from Adamic discussed above, also uses the endonym Bela Krajina in English. Again, this is probably due to ignorance of the English exonym. If there was any ideological shift among Slovenians from exonyms to endonyms in English texts, it was not apparent at this time. What is apparent from the examples above, however, is that an English of appalling quality was being produced, uncorrected by English native speakers, as Adamic generally respelled Slovenian names and phrases following Cyrillic transliteration practices, a practice considered dated today. Yugoslavia turned eastward and away from the west. %e notion of a “generational lag” should also be considered here; postwar translation practice would not have differed from prewar practice in such subtleties because the postwar translators had prewar training. Similar to other eastern European countries, as the communist era progressed there was an increasing disconnect with native English in comparison to western European countries. %e reasons for this were not only political (with restrictions on visas, etc.), but also economic. Not only did people have reduced means to travel to English-speaking countries, there were also fewer funds to purchase native-English materials for language instruction. %e result (which was certainly not limited to Slovenia) was a range of second-class English instruction materials produced in-country. 4 Not only were these ideologically “safe,” they were also much more affordable than publications imported from the UK or US. As Yugoslavia’s self-imposed isolation from the English world persisted, and as prewar translators gradually faded from the scene, Slovenian English also began to drift away from native models in certain aspects and increasingly rely on Slovenian solutions to translation problems – that is, the creation of “Slovenian English.” By the late communist period, a preference (among Slovenians) for Slovenian endonyms in English texts appears to have developed. %is was “codified” by Stanko Klinar in 1988: Imena za Kranjsko, Koroško in Štajersko se v zvezi z zgodovino do leta 1918 glasijo dosledno Carniola, Carinthia in Styria. . . . V nezgodovinskem kontekstu pa . . . lahko uporabljamo domača slovenska imena. . . . polatinjena keltska imena (Carinthia, Carniola) so primerna za znanstveni stil, medtem ko se je v leposlovju in vsakdanjem govoru bolje zatekati k slovenskim imenom . . . (Gorenjsko, Dolenjsko). . . . V zgodovinski zvezi nastopajo tudi za Gorenjsko, Dolenjsko . . . imena Upper Carniola, Lower Carniola . . . čeravno se zadnje čase kaže močna težnja, da jih opustimo in nadomestimo z domačimi. 5 (1–2) %is recommendation appears to have been made with no recourse to actual native English practice, and is more of a proclamation than an observation. %e psychology behind it is considered in Section 3 below. At the same time, the English use of exonyms outside Slovenia appears to have continued unabated: A classic example in Slovenia is Dana Blaganje and Ivan Konte’s , which contains grammatical expres- sions such as “indefinite” verbs (1998: 217 ff.) that have not been used in English since the nineteenth century. Although it was first published in 1976, the regular reprints of this work do not provide the original publication date. The book is regularly ridiculed by students and has its own ironic Facebook fan site, In historical contexts up to 1918, the names for , and are tly Carniola, Carinthia, and Styria. . . . How- ever, in a non-historical context . . . we may use the native Slovenian names. . . . the Latinized Celtic names (Carinthia, Carniola) are appropri- ate for scientific style, whereas in literature and everyday language it is better to fall back on the Slovenian names . . . (Gorenjsko, Dolenjsko). . . . In historical contexts the. . . the names Upper Carniola, Lower Carniola . . . also appear for . . . , in recent times there has been a strong tendency to abandon these and replace them with Slovenian names.” (22) In Carniola, a region of Slovenia in Yugoslavia . . . (Crane 1983, 186) (23) In Lower Carniola there is clear evidence for the development of economic centres . . . (Champion & Megaw 1985, 75) Klinar’s work also recommended the use of atypical neuter forms (e.g. Gorenjsko) in English: Imena “Kranjsko, Koroško . . .” imajo vzporedne oblike ženskega spola “Kranjska, Koroška”, itd., ki so v slovenščini v imenovalniku celo bolj običajne. V angleških besedilih lahko uporabljamo obe obliki . . . . Vseeno se zdi vredno priporočiti, da bi zaradi večje enotnosti zapisa v angleških besedilih uporabljali samo srednje oblike, kajti nekatera slovenska imena kot “Ravensko, Dolinsko, Goričko” ženske oblike sploh nimajo. 6 (4) %ese positions are basically unchanged in the 1994 (13–5) edition of Klinar’s work. %e recommendation of names like Gorenjsko is particularly problematic in that the use of nominative neuter forms – although they do exist (cf. Snoj 2009, 117, 144, 210, 284) – is quite rare in Slovenian. %e effect is the creation of highly unnatural English names that are not English in origin, do not conform to English spelling patterns (cf. § 3.2), and also differ from the typical Slovenian names. Here it should be stressed that the Slovenian translation community, like Slovenia itself, is very small, and, for better or worse, individual works can exert a far greater impact than would be expected in larger language communities like English, German, or French. 7 Klinar’s work and recommendations were informally adopted at the translation department in Ljubljana, and have correspondingly influenced translation practice ever since. Just as prewar patterns persisted into the postwar era, the fall of communism, Slovenian independence, and integration into the western world did not herald an automatic shift from translation practice established in previous decades. Again, there has been a generational lag in practice following perspective. In the post-communist era, both endonyms and exonyms are found in native-English works. However, there is more chaos than order in how these are used. Some texts actually differentiate between historical and contemporary use as envisioned by Klinar: (24) . . . the Slovenes were divided between the historic provinces of Carniola, Gorizia, Istria, Carinthia and Styria . . . (Gow & Carmichael 2000, 13) . . . have the parallel feminine forms , etc., which are even more usual in the nomina- tive in Slovenian. We may use both forms in English texts . . . . In any case, it seems advisable to recommend using only the neuter form in English texts for greater uniformity in notating them because certain Slovenian names such as , simply do not have feminine forms.” Within Slovenian translation practice, it is fairly easy to pinpoint particular publications as sources of error or poor usage. A notorious example is the ubiquitous Slovenian-English dictionary by Anton Grad and Henry Leeming (1990), with examples such as (i.e. ‘demanding’) translated as “pretentious”; a translation customer asked me only a few days ago in an English e-mail message if I could prepare a “pretentious translation” for her. (25) South of Ljubljana are Bela Krajina and the fertile hills of Dolenjska. (Gow & Carmichael 2000, 14) Other publications fail to observe this (artificial) systematicity. For example, one popular guidebook extends the use of Slovenian endonyms to all historical time periods: (26) Most of Kranjska, Koroška and western Štajerska were united under the Habsburgs by the middle of the 14th century . . . (Fallon 1998, 16) Surveying publications in general, it is difficult to see that any particular usage pattern is being applied; for example, in two very recent publications: (27) . . . Gorenjska boasts some of the finest alpine scenery anywhere in the world . . . (McKelvie & McKelvie 2005, 93) (28) . . . three pairs of Slovakian lynx were released in Slovenia’s Kocevje Forest and Inner Carniola . . . (Taylor 2005, 136) Linguistic works generally appear to continue the use of English exonyms: (29) 1. Lower Carniola (Dolenjsko), 2. Upper Carniola (Gorenjsko) . . . (map legend; Derbyshire 1993, 13) (30) . . . the dialects of Upper and Lower Carniola . . . (Herrity 2000, 10), although the recent survey by Roland Sussex and Paul Cubberly somewhat confusingly mixes exonyms with endonyms: (31) . . . the Styrian (Sln Štajersko) dialects . . . to the east of Carniola . . . to the east of Styrian. . . . those of Notranjsko, Štajersko and Panonsko. (Sussex & Cubberly 2006, 503) Interestingly, Slovenian-English dictionary practice never seems to have made the switch from Carniola and other exonyms. For example, “gorenjski – of Upper Carniola” (Kotnik 1945, 56), “gorénjski – of Upper Carniola” (Kotnik 1967, 103), “Gorénjsko – Upper Carniola” (Grad & Leeming 1990, 138). %is is significant because, as a small language with a limited number of bilingual dictionaries, Slovenian-English translation is especially influenced by the solutions offered in particular dictionaries (as observed in footnote 6). %e appearance of Slovenian endonyms in native-English texts does not reflect gradual English acceptance of Slovenian notions of how to write English. Instead (especially in popular works written for general audiences, such as guidebooks), there is probably a “bleed-over” effect of less scholarly English writers being influenced by Slovenian practice on the ground, availability of and reliance on English tourism material written by Slovenians, and so on. As an index to the current vox populi, it is instructive to look at practice in the English version of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Although the authoritative quality of Wikipedia is open to debate, its reflection of common practice – and, in turn, influence on that practice – should not be underestimated. Despite the many authors contributing to or modifying Wikipedia’s articles, they almost exclusively use the standard English exonyms to refer to Slovenia’s traditional regions. Having explored the usage patterns of exonyms and endonyms for Slovenia’s traditional regions, the psychology behind these patterns deserves comment. %ree notions in particular should be explored: language as ownership, the notion of establishment, and reflections of politics. Slovenian identity is bound up with language, and so it is unsurprising that language would be used as a tool to assert territorial claims. In a perversion of the principle of Cuius regio, eius religio, Slovenians might be said to be asserting the principle of Cuius lingua, eius regio (cf. Coulmas 1985, 141 ff.) writing, for example, Celovec rather than Klagenfurt (Austria) and Trst rather than Trieste (Italy) 8 in English texts (!). By insisting on Gorenjska in English texts, Slovenians are marking their territory. In doing so, they equate place-names in various languages with ethnic identity, recapitulating the late eighteenth-century reconceptualization of languages of civilization as languages of territorially defined groups (cf. Anderson 1991, 196). At the same time, they have been careful not to focus too sharply when insisting on use of the “real names” of these regions. Etymologists are well aware that some of these Slovenian lexemes are very shallow indeed; for example, Dolenjska ‘Lower Carniola’ and Gorenjska ‘Upper Carniola’ are acknowledged to be translations of the older German terms Unterkrain and Oberkrain (Snoj 2009, 117, 144). A second impulse that receives significant attention in Slovenia today is that of internationally promoting Slovenia’s profile or establishing (uveljavljanje, uveljavitev) its identity. One of the misguided ways in which this is approached is through the idea that Slovenian words can be introduced into English, thereby imparting a bit of Slovenian language, culture, and identity into the international arena. %e notion is that, if we can get people to write and say Gorenjska, we can put it on the map. %e main problem with this impulse is that not all words are suited for borrowing. For example, English journalism has readily adopted duma and sabor to refer to the Russian and Croatian parliaments because they have a simple phonetic and syllabic structure. %e imposing clusters in Slovenian državni zbor means that it has no such chance of becoming established in English. Similarly, clusters like njsk in the name Gorenjska, Dolenjska, and so on prevent them from ever becoming established in English (just as English words like wreath and growth will not readily be ‘Trieste is ours’ to be recast as picked up by Slovenians). Worse yet, insisting on such names may even invite ridicule – as in the satire “Clinton Deploys Vowels to Bosnia: Cities of Sjlbvdnzv, Grzny to Be First.” 9 It would be overly simplistic to ascribe language changes to political ideology because politics operates as only one of many social factors influencing language. At the same time, politics cannot be ignored as a factor. In rough terms, the establishment of communism in Slovenia in 1945 marked a turning away from the west and an orientation toward the east. %is also involved rejecting western labels – and not only historical exonyms such as Laibach and Vipacco (the German and Italian names for Ljubljana and Vipava), but also rooting out western-sounding Slovenian names, for example, changing Guštanj (< Germ. Guttenstein) to Ravne na Koroškem, Marenberg (< Germ. Mahrenberg) to Radlje ob Dravi, and Rajhenburg (< Germ. Reichenburg) to Brestanica (Spremembe 1996; cf. also Urbanc & Gabrovec 2007). Rejecting names such as Carniola, Styria and so on corresponded to this practice (although they were not German or Italian, they were western), and promoting names such as Gorenjska, Štajerska, and so on reflected an affiliation with places east, in other communist countries, that never had English endonyms, such as Međimurje (Croatia), Vojvodina (Serbia), Podlaskie (Poland), Volhynia (Ukraine), and Maramureş (Romania) (cf. Fig. 1). %e traditional regions of Slovenia and their English equivalents are presented in Table 4. Slovenian English Slovenian English Kranjska Carniola Primorska the Littoral Gorenjska Upper Carniola Koroška Carinthia Notranjska Inner Carniola Štajerska Styria Dolenjska Lower Carniola Prekmurje Prekmurje Bela Krajina White Carniola %is table contains no new information; certainly no information that is not readily available in any number of sources. Nonetheless, it is worth presenting again, if only to reiterate the English equivalents of the Slovenian names. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that the former crownland of Carniola has four constituent parts (many Slovenians today are unclear on which traditional regions were crownlands and which were parts thereof). In addition, it is noteworthy that there is no English exonym for Prekmurje. %is apparent inconsistency bothers some people. 10 In fact, the situation is quite typical. As seen earlier (cf. Table 1), English also lacks full sets of exonyms for the regions of other European countries. %e reason for Prekmurje’s lack of an English exonym – and why Dalmatia and Istria have such exonyms – is evident from the map in Figure 1. Prekmurje was in the eastern (i.e. peripheral) half of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (it was not administratively joined to the rest of Slovenia until 1919), and so it had no tradition of belonging to the familiar, western (i.e. central) half of the empire – and, like almost all other Hungarian regions, no exonym as well. Finally, a number of practical questions arise that I would like to address here. Q: Don’t Slovenians have the right to shape how their country and its parts are discussed in English? A: No, they do not. English is shaped by English speakers. Just as English speakers’ opinions are irrelevant when Slovenians write Mississippi as Misisipi and New Mexico as Nova Mehika, Slovenians’ opinions are irrelevant in shaping English usage. Q: What about reciprocity? Slovenians write New York, so why don’t you write Gorenjska? A: Reciprocity is irrelevant in shaping English usage. Q: What about official translations? Isn’t Gorenjska the official name? A: T o paraphrase Hanns Johst: “When I hear of official translations, I reach for my gun.” 11 First of all, anything defended as an “official translation” is probably already on shaky ground. Second, opinions of foreign governments are irrelevant in shaping English usage. Q: Won’t people confuse Carinthia and Styria with parts of Austria? A: Perhaps. On the other hand, other geographical features span multiple countries. Most English speakers associate the Alps with Switzerland, but this does not necessitate special names for the Austrian Alps, Italian Alps, and so on. In part, Slovenians themselves are to blame for the fact that Carinthia and Styria are not associated with Slovenia. Ever since 1918, Slovenia (or Yugoslavia) has sought to administratively erase the borders of the old crownlands by designating provinces, municipalities, and statistical regions that do not correspond to them, whereas Austria has kept them reified by maintaining the traditional borders as administrative boundaries. Ironically, the old crownlands are nonetheless the most psychologically real to Slovenians’ geographical identities (e.g., it would be very unusual to meet a Slovenian that says he comes from “the Municipality of Mokronog- T rebelno” rather than from Lower Carniola). As Robin and Jennifer McKelvie comment in an essay titled When is a region a region?: . . . there are no regions as such, however, many Slovenes regard the regions that were developed under the Austro-Habsburg Empire [sic] as an important part of the history of their country . . . . with which many Slovenes still identify today. If you want to be a stickler they do not exist . . . (2005, 4) %e first conclusion from this examination of exonym versus endonym usage for Slovenian regions is that my title, Carniola oživljena, 12 is overstated. Carniola and other English exonyms have not passed out of use, so there is no need for resuscitation or other emergency intervention. Second, there is no strong evidence that (outside of English written by Slovenians) there was ever any systematic or robust shift away from these exonyms – although their use has increased in native English texts, presumably because of a bleed-over effect from Slovenian usage. %ird, such a shift would be undesirable, not only for native English speakers, but especially for Slovenians. Not only are the Slovenian names “unpronounceable” in English (potentially even inviting ridicule), the use of endonyms casts a veil of obscurity over Slovenia, creating an image that is marginalized, insignificant, and alien. Conversely, the use of traditional English exonyms accentuates the familiarity, significance, and Europeanness of Slovenian places for English speakers.