When I lived in California, I never would have thought the title of this post was a pun. I would exepct people to know that I am referring the area of land in the Pacific Northwest we call Washington. In the Midwest, however, someone might assume I was talking about the political or economic "state" of Washington, D.C.
I don't think I've heard anyone refer to Washington, D.C. as "Washington, D.C." since moving to the Midwest. Instead, people refer to our capitol as "Washington." This may seem to be an inconsequential thing to most people, but it always leaves me wondering: if "Washington" means "Washington, D.C.," what name do you use for the state?
These thoughts were brought on by an article in the Washington Post in which the writer calls her husband, a D.C. native, a "Washingtonian." I was so confused by this, I actually wondered if there was a branch of the Washington Post in Washington state.
I understand that the fact that the capitol has the same name as a state presents a problem. But, doesn't it make more sense to refer to the city by its longer name than to the state by its longer name? Or, to have another abbreviation for the capitol?
Why not do what we do in California and call it D.C.? There aren't any other D.C.s in this country; it makes a lot more sense.
Of course, District of Columbian could inspire even more confusion than Washingtonian, especially if it appears at a page break...
Monday, January 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just one of those wierd midwest things. Same thing with New York being both a city and a state. Often the we just say New York and it can mean eithor. I have also been confused and usally can tell which Washington by context but I have been trained by my midwest upbringing to watch for the nuance.
Tim Walsh
Well said.
Post a Comment