Talk:Harbin

Library of Congress: Harbin is "of non-Chinese origin"

Hey @Tooironic, in 2011, someone wondered what the origin of 'Harbin' was. Later, in 2017, you answered that question and said that 'Harbin' was derived from Mandarin. However, in 2001, the Library of Congress had said that the word 'Harbin' is "of non-Chinese origin". Here's the quote:
"3. Romanize words of non-Chinese origin systematically in all cases, even though normalized (non-systematic) romanizations are known or the word comes from a Latin script language. [examples:] Wulumuqi not Urumchi Ha'erbin Shi not Harbin Zhijiage not Chicago Dongjing not Tokyo" LOC Source, archived: [1].
Later, in 2020, someone said that 'Harbin' was from Manchu via Mandarin [2].
Later in the same year, I removed altogether the Mandarin component (which you had added) from the etymology for 'Harbin': [3].
Because of your extensive and awesome China-related work, I want to ask you: do you now agree with the current interpretation, where Manchu is the sole origin of this loan word into English?
Either way, could you explain your original reasoning, so that if this issue comes up again, we have a memorialized record of what the relevant arguments might be to support whatever conclusion we come to here now and in the future? Between 2011 and 2017, I too would most certainly have believed that Harbin was from Hanyu Pinyin, because I considered 'Harbin' an abbreviation of some kind, perhaps like 'wánr' (玩兒／玩儿 (wánr) (not sure if that pinyin should technically be described as an 'abbreviation'). Any comment from you is sincerely welcomed. I think your comment here on this talk page will help stabilize the current etymology long term (if you agree with the current etymology that gives a solely Manchu derivation). On the alternative, if you don't like or have questions on the current etymology, I would want to know. If you have no comment, thanks anyway for all your work. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC) (modified)

The etymology I added five years ago may be incorrect. I probably added it without thinking too much. We should consult the literature on contested etymologies like this one. I don't have an opinion on this either way, as I haven't read any refereed articles on this topic. Note that a distinction should be made between etymology and orthography. (Hanyu Pinyin is not a language.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tooironic Thanks for your comment. I would like to ask: if a word is spelled a certain way because of the influence of a transcription/transliteration system prescribing a certain orthography or another, does that system then not become a component for explaining the origin (etymology) of the word? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. But do you think it's likely that "Harbin" was borrowed directly from Manchu? Did English speakers in premodern times communicate with imperial China in Manchu, or Chinese/Mandarin? But of course we can't answer these questions without consulting the literature. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)