May I take this opportunity to highlight to our American friends that its not pronounced as Nay-Paul. No. Its pronounced as Nay-Paal.
Also it's worth noting that Ancient Greek and Modern Greek have different pronunciations. Some of the English pronunciations are actually more 'correct' than the Modern Greek names, e.g. the English pronunciation of Gamma.
"Not care so long as you're understood" reminds me of US TV approach, where every report pronounces that funny foreign name different, often painfully wrong; or periodic fashions in education -- during the sixties and early seventies UK fashion for "no one cares about grammar so long as the little dear is understood". It's coloured, limited and ruined my communication for the following 50 years, despite much effort to self teach as an adult. I'll probably never put all commas, semicolons and what not in the right place naturally, nor clear sentences structure -- they come with a second editing pass. A pass HN mostly doesn't get, sorry. :)
We got, in total: "verbs -- doing words, adjectives -- describing words, nouns -- naming words, tenses, and the use of the full stop". I honestly remember nothing else of grammar being taught whatsoever.
TL;DR I would start wars against "not care as long as you're understood". It's a horrible, disrespectful and limiting approach. Happy New Year. :)
Take Iran for example. It's rendered often in English as [ɑɪ.ɹæn] (eye-ran). What it "should" be is [i.ɾɑn] (ee-rahn). Fortunately, all the sounds in [i.ɾɑn] are ones that occur in most varieties of English (with the exception of the [ɾ], but that's minor), so most speakers are able to accommodate without issue.
Now compare that to Shanghai: its English rendition is [ʃeɪŋ.hɑɪ], and its Mandarin pronunciation is [ʂâŋ.xài]. Most Englishes lack the voiceless retroflex fricative [ʂ], and the same for the voiceless velar fricative [x], and to make matters worse, Mandarin is tonal, which puts the correct pronunciation of this word squarely out of reach for almost all English speakers.
It still makes sense to insist that people try as hard as they reasonably can. Perhaps to say that speakers should get as close as possible—in the case of Shanghai, for example, maybe this would mean [ʃɑŋ.hɑɪ] instead of [ʃeɪŋ.hɑɪ].
But I do give a lot of marks for them trying and exposing us to how the person pronounces their own name or town, and prefer it to Anglicising everything. Even if sometimes it only results in an imperfect close attempt with a layer of English speaker's difficulty, or that we don't realise it's not quite correct Finnish or Cantonese etc.
In fact, in a case of politically questionable names it could even be seen as a sign of antirevisionist acceptance to introduce a badly butchered (if necessary) transcription and pronouncement of the local name into a language that used to have a name that isn't acceptable anymore.
It's just accent drift, happens all the time. The other pronunciation is also in use, I would say "Root 66" but I call the network packet devise a "Rowter".
Er, while it's not a construct that appears much in English to start with, I'm fairly sure the natural phonetic interpretation of “Paal” to many and perhaps most American readers would be identical to “Paul”, so that's a non-helpful correction.
Also, I'm pretty sure the “Nay” part is not part of the (English) pronunciation; this source[0] gives what I would write out informally as “nih-PULL” as the UK pronunciation and “nuh-PALL” as the US pronunciation.
[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/nepal
Despite having a cumulative 8 years of foreign language courses against three different languages, I have no clue how you’re expecting me to pronounce “paal”.
Is it “pal” - like friend / buddy? “Pail” - like something you’d carry water in? Something else?