There was a time when a Bombay resident was a Bombaywallah or a Bambaiyya. Since the city reverted to its non-anglicized origual name, Mumbai, such persons are called Mumbaikar. In Marathi, the 'kar' is normally a suffix to a place-name which means 'resident of'.
My ancestors are said to have been residents of Vijapur, which made us Vijapurkars. All residents of Thane, regardless of their surnames, thus also qualify to be Thanekars, like all Pune residents, Punekars.
Most newspapers, even English language ones, have taken to the use of 'Mumbaikar' but some bloggers, as this, use 'Bombayite'. Some prefer Mumbaiite. The Hindustan Times has also taken to it almost routinely. Which means, there is no consistency.
This brings us to the use of two other usages: 'Andhraite' and 'Keralite' when referring to people from the two states, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. To my understanding, Andhra Pradesh is a region (pradesh) where Andhras live and in Kerala, people who speak Malayalee, and therefore are Malayalees, reside. If this logic were wrong, then people of Bengal (I am on West Bengal) would be Bengalites.
Tamilnadu was the name coined for the region where Tamil is spoken and by the same logic, Odisha for the region where Odiya is the language. Like Gujarat is the state of Gujaratis. All this has to do with the linguistic basis for forming the state, the first being Andhra Pradesh, the region of Andhras who speak Telugu. It is a surprise it did not become Telugu Pradesh or Telugunadu.
It is possible I may be wrong. If there are any contrarian views, hey are welcome here. But do take the trouble to convey it.
My ancestors are said to have been residents of Vijapur, which made us Vijapurkars. All residents of Thane, regardless of their surnames, thus also qualify to be Thanekars, like all Pune residents, Punekars.
Most newspapers, even English language ones, have taken to the use of 'Mumbaikar' but some bloggers, as this, use 'Bombayite'. Some prefer Mumbaiite. The Hindustan Times has also taken to it almost routinely. Which means, there is no consistency.
This brings us to the use of two other usages: 'Andhraite' and 'Keralite' when referring to people from the two states, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. To my understanding, Andhra Pradesh is a region (pradesh) where Andhras live and in Kerala, people who speak Malayalee, and therefore are Malayalees, reside. If this logic were wrong, then people of Bengal (I am on West Bengal) would be Bengalites.
Tamilnadu was the name coined for the region where Tamil is spoken and by the same logic, Odisha for the region where Odiya is the language. Like Gujarat is the state of Gujaratis. All this has to do with the linguistic basis for forming the state, the first being Andhra Pradesh, the region of Andhras who speak Telugu. It is a surprise it did not become Telugu Pradesh or Telugunadu.
It is possible I may be wrong. If there are any contrarian views, hey are welcome here. But do take the trouble to convey it.
