You're making a bit of a false comparison here because you're comparing the shortened English names with the complete formal native names of each country. Yes, Japan is colloqially "Japan," but it's formally "The State of Japan" which is exactly what "Nihon [Japan] koku (country)" means. And in common Japanese parlance, the locals would say, "Nihon" or "Nippon" in the same way we commonly use "Japan." This is not to say that your average English-speaking backpacker will refer to "Japan" as "Nihon," but the Japan/Nihon-koku parallel is unfair.

Similarly, Jordan isn't really "Jordan," it's the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" -- again, a translation of the full formal Arabic name that you mention, "Al-Mamlakah al-Urduniyyah al Hāšimiyyah." A trip to Google Translate reveals the short-form name, "Al-Urdun." I would wager that Jordanians prefer an economy of words in their daily speech just as we do and that they employ "Al-Urdun" in casual conversation. Again, I'm not saying an American backpacker in Jordan would call it "Al-Urdun," but even a Jordanian wouldn't commonly speak about "Al-Mamlakah al-Urduniyyah al Hāšimiyyah" so your comparison doesn't work.

Importantly, even the subject of your post, "Laos," is formally called the "Lao People's Democratic Republic" in English and "Sathalanalat Paxathipatai Paxaxon Lao" in Laotian. People in Laos naturally use a short form name, "Muang Lao" (as you mention), or "Pathet Lao," so you've mixed a short form Laotian name with long-form names of the other countries that you use to support your case. It might be unique to backpackers in Laos to make use of the local state-naming lingo (although I doubt it), but you've confused the issue by comparing informal Laotian state-naming with the formal nomenclature of other states.

Reply