New Post
Search
Help
Archives-iyah
This article is strictly based on opinion. There are no facts or anything resembling some type of research. These names that the writer is referring to are old names from African or Arabic descent. Just as Aaliyah's name is. To assume that people began to name their girls "Aaliyah" after her death to show respect is one thing. But, to claim the bases of a culture of names based on one person in the 20th century, and post it online as if it were legit, is rediculous. This just shows how ignorant some people are.
Please do some research next time. Maybe you will receive some credit for trying.
Please do some research next time. Maybe you will receive some credit for trying.
1
Replies
Could you post a link to the article you're referring to?
1
But surely it is the case that the singer Aaliyah popularized her particular name in the U.S. That's the only fact mentioned in the Aaliyah entry. I don't see anything in the entry which implies that the "basis of a culture of names [is] based on one person in the 20th century." That's why I thought s/he must be referring to some other article which mentioned a group of names, not just Aaliyah.
1
I think it's the English (Modern) that's the 'problem'. At least that's what I understand. With Arabic & English (Modern) listed as the 'culture' of this name, and it's being popularized by the singer, it sort of is based on one person to have it listed as English.
I mean, why aren't Sofia, Diego or Juan listed as English (Modern) if merely popularity was the ground for making Aaliyah a English (Modern) name.
Can't say I disagree on this.
I mean, why aren't Sofia, Diego or Juan listed as English (Modern) if merely popularity was the ground for making Aaliyah a English (Modern) name.
Can't say I disagree on this.
1
I think original poster was trying to reply to this:
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/fact/4339493
"Aaliyah's fame as well as the natural progression of fashion have led to -iyah replacing -isha and -ika as the most common suffix in newly created African-American female names."
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/fact/4339327
Aniyah, Janiyah, Zariyah, Samiyah, Jaliyah, Kaliyah, Zaniyah, Taliyah could be the "African or Arabic descent" names the OP was referring to.
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/fact/4339493
"Aaliyah's fame as well as the natural progression of fashion have led to -iyah replacing -isha and -ika as the most common suffix in newly created African-American female names."
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/fact/4339327
Aniyah, Janiyah, Zariyah, Samiyah, Jaliyah, Kaliyah, Zaniyah, Taliyah could be the "African or Arabic descent" names the OP was referring to.
1
That makes more sense, but I wonder if all of the names listed are actually of African or Arabic origin. I think it is very likely that some of them are newly created names with no particular history, but yes, it would take some research to verify or disprove that.
1
The original poster may be upset because her name (or at least her posting name) is Zakiya, which is indeed a name with an Arabic origin, the feminine form of Zakiy, which according to Gandhi & Maneka's "Muslim & Parsi Names" means "intelligent, clever" in Arabic.
Samiyah also has an Arabic origin as the feminine form of the rather common Arabic male name Sami.
There are some rare Arabic or Muslim names that might be the origin of Janiyah, Zariyah, Jaliyah, and Taliyah, though whether or not the use of those by modern African-Americans really is related to them is debatable.
I can't find, though, any Arabic or Muslim name that would be the source of Aniyah, Kaliyah, or Zaniyah and think they are most likely to be modern creations.
Samiyah also has an Arabic origin as the feminine form of the rather common Arabic male name Sami.
There are some rare Arabic or Muslim names that might be the origin of Janiyah, Zariyah, Jaliyah, and Taliyah, though whether or not the use of those by modern African-Americans really is related to them is debatable.
I can't find, though, any Arabic or Muslim name that would be the source of Aniyah, Kaliyah, or Zaniyah and think they are most likely to be modern creations.
This message was edited 1/22/2013, 12:31 PM
1
Sofia, Diego and Juan tend to be names given in a certain ethnic group, i.e. they are not universally used [by all ethnic groups] in the United States (or any other English-speaking country). If any of those names had been a popular name among Caucasian communities, black communities, etc. in the USA, then one could say that those names had transcended from their original ethnic community (i.e. have become universally used) and therefore deserve to be listed as a name that is English or English (Modern). But as it is, Sofia, Diego and Juan are largely confined to the latino/hispanic community - and a large percentage of the people in these communities are immigrants from Middle America and South America. Therefore, to me, it makes sense that these names are not listed as English or English (Modern), because they do not reflect American society as a whole - they only reflect the latino/hispanic community. Just compare originally non-English names like Alexander and Marcus, those are names that are universally used: you'll find it on Caucasian people, black people, Asian people, etc. in the USA and so those are universally used and reflective of American society as a whole (and thus deserve to be given English as usage in the BtN database). If you see what I mean (I'm not sure whether I explained this well). :)
As such, I personally believe that for Mike C., mere popularity or a certain famous bearer alone is not enough (or not the sole criterion) for a name to be given a certain usage. It depends on how mainstream and universally used a name has become in a particular country (i.e. "ingeburgerd", as we would say in Dutch). Prior to the rise of fame of the singer Aaliyah, I am sure that the name was exclusively Arabic in usage and hardly ever used in the USA (if it was, then it was probably confined to Arabic communities in the USA).
As such, I personally believe that for Mike C., mere popularity or a certain famous bearer alone is not enough (or not the sole criterion) for a name to be given a certain usage. It depends on how mainstream and universally used a name has become in a particular country (i.e. "ingeburgerd", as we would say in Dutch). Prior to the rise of fame of the singer Aaliyah, I am sure that the name was exclusively Arabic in usage and hardly ever used in the USA (if it was, then it was probably confined to Arabic communities in the USA).
This message was edited 1/21/2013, 12:51 PM
1
Yup I see what you mean :)
It makes sense. Might not be the choice I'd have made, but there's definitely something to say for it.
Diego is a tricky example, bc of it's popularity in Belgium and France, which can't be explained by a big Hispanic community. Jayden would also be a tricky, despite it being so popular with us, I'd NEVER consider it a Dutch name. It seems a subjective difference. But I guess that might be why Mike chose "Usage" instead of "Origin" or something like that to describe 'an English name'.
It makes sense. Might not be the choice I'd have made, but there's definitely something to say for it.
Diego is a tricky example, bc of it's popularity in Belgium and France, which can't be explained by a big Hispanic community. Jayden would also be a tricky, despite it being so popular with us, I'd NEVER consider it a Dutch name. It seems a subjective difference. But I guess that might be why Mike chose "Usage" instead of "Origin" or something like that to describe 'an English name'.
1
Assigning the usages is not overly scientific -- I do not have a well-defined process for this. A usage may have been assigned for any of the following reasons:
- the name is well-established as being traditional to that culture/language/region
- the name is used by a broad segment of the population (relative to the use in the other listed usages)
- the name's use is notable given its origins (for example if a particular Chinese name gained a bit of currency among English-speakers, which would not be typical, I might list English as a usage).
I'm sure there are many names that have usages listed which are questionable. It's one of the things that gets tinkered with the most.
Another part of the problem is that the deep and multi-year statistics available for the US, France, etc. are lacking in so many other places.
- the name is well-established as being traditional to that culture/language/region
- the name is used by a broad segment of the population (relative to the use in the other listed usages)
- the name's use is notable given its origins (for example if a particular Chinese name gained a bit of currency among English-speakers, which would not be typical, I might list English as a usage).
I'm sure there are many names that have usages listed which are questionable. It's one of the things that gets tinkered with the most.
Another part of the problem is that the deep and multi-year statistics available for the US, France, etc. are lacking in so many other places.
1
I think it's been a very wise choice to use the wording 'usage', because the word itself implies a certain degree of subjectivity.
I can see it must be tricky to assign usages. I reckon often there something to be said both for and against assigning a certain usage.
I can see it must be tricky to assign usages. I reckon often there something to be said both for and against assigning a certain usage.
1