Changing Otago to Otakou would be wrong

THE suggestion that the title of our noble province be altered to Otakou

(ODT, 27.4.18) is unwarranted.

Otakou was the Maori name for the kaika at the entrance to the harbour, the correct pronunciation of which is Otago.

Rather than Otago being the anglicised form of Otakou, it is the incorrect spelling of the original Maori word which is responsible for the confusion.

A fuller explanation can be found in

Maori Dunedin, by Goodall and Griffiths, on pages 46 to 48.

In 1848, the New Zealand Association, located in Scotland, accepted Otago as being correct and informed their Dunedin representative, Captain Cargill, of their decision.

That Otago was to be the official name of the settlement was subsequently published in the Otago News. Both of these publications are available at the Hocken Library, Dunedin.

Undoubtedly, there are others who are more qualified than myself to comment on this subject. Hopefully they will put pen to paper.

Frank G. Leckie

Burkes

PETER Small (ODT, 27.4.18) is incorrect in his belief that Otago is simply the anglicised form of Otakou — it is the southern or Kai Tahu Maori dialect of the name, in exactly the same way that Waihola is a southern form of Waihora and Rakiura is a southern form of Rangiora.

The southern dialect had fallen largely out of use until recently and is only now undergoing a slight revival, with some Dunedin organisations preferring to use the southern form in their Maori names.

A prime example would be the Hocken Collections, which describe themselves as Te Uare Taoka o Hakena, rather than the ‘‘standard’’ Maori Whare Taonga o Hakena.

James Dignan

St Clair PETER Small (ODT, 27.4.18) claims Otago is just an anglicised form of Otakou. Not so.

The name Otago is an old southern Maori dialect word (see Peter Entwisle, Behold the Moon, 1998, pp 136139). Otakou is a North Island ‘‘corruption’’.

I’ve been surprised how many lifelong Dunedin locals don’t know this. Let’s keep the name of our region. Colin Cheyne

Dunedin

Competing stadiums

TERRY Davies is absolutely right that the prospect of Christchurch building a roofed stadium need not be a threat to the success of Forsyth Barr and its ability to secure acts (ODT, 28.4.18).

One may have the glitzier stadium, but what’s the value in that if those who supply the acts don’t want to work with the people behind it?

As Mr Davies stated, this was an early issue for DVML but thankfully not anymore, and its working relationships with promoters are now positive.

As Christchurch’s base does not yet have a similar venue, it’s an unfair comparison at present. But if DVML can maintain the best relationships with promoters, who’s to say they won’t continue to get the first phone call when Christchurch’s stadium is up and running?

The overall experience is also important, not just the concert itself.

Is Christchurch small and united enough to team up and ‘‘paint the town Ed’’ on event weekends, like Dunedin? I’m thinking no.

Smaller population isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Dunedin just has to continue to work together as a whole and embrace its strengths.

In turn, what the crowd up the road ends up doing stadiumwise won’t be an issue for the lower South Island. Will Grigor

Cromwell ...................................

BIBLE READING: Wisdom is more precious than rubies . . . nothing you desire can compare. — Proverbs 8:11.