New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesWould it help
in reply to a message by তন্ময় ভট
to say a Hindi name? Focusing on the language (or language family I suppose) rather than the religion? Simply because of the sheer size and variety of the Indian subcontinent, which makes it difficult for Westerners to get a proper grip on it. Or would it create more problems than it would solve?
1
Replies
The problems are rather the same: is caliing David an English name rather than, say, French or Hebrew better than calling it a Christian name rather than, say, Jewish? You can think of India like you think of Europe and the middle east combined.
Note that the pronounciation, but often not the spelling, changes from one language to the next, a slightly confusing concept, since for about a thousand years the scripts are mutually unintelligible, but the alphabets *do* correspond. So, in pronounciation questions, the language is essential.
In most other contexts, I think we just have to be vague: just like an unqualified use of the term Spanish name somewhat implies that it is not restricted to the Basque population, and that it is probably not used in France; I suggest calling most of these names Indian. When a more specific usage is known, we can put it in: like North Indian name. Sometimes, it may be known to the language like a Hindi or Bengali name, and, yes, sometime to a religion like a Parsee name. Conversely, even though there are a lot of Muhammads in India, we should not call it an Indian name.
Sorry to take up board space with such trivialities: but a Hindu name does jar!
Note that the pronounciation, but often not the spelling, changes from one language to the next, a slightly confusing concept, since for about a thousand years the scripts are mutually unintelligible, but the alphabets *do* correspond. So, in pronounciation questions, the language is essential.
In most other contexts, I think we just have to be vague: just like an unqualified use of the term Spanish name somewhat implies that it is not restricted to the Basque population, and that it is probably not used in France; I suggest calling most of these names Indian. When a more specific usage is known, we can put it in: like North Indian name. Sometimes, it may be known to the language like a Hindi or Bengali name, and, yes, sometime to a religion like a Parsee name. Conversely, even though there are a lot of Muhammads in India, we should not call it an Indian name.
Sorry to take up board space with such trivialities: but a Hindu name does jar!
1
Ahh! Thank you!
I agree very much with your post. "Hindu" is far to often used as a fancy title for any name from the Indian subcontinent, whether or not it actually has a true affiliation with the religion.
I agree very much with your post. "Hindu" is far to often used as a fancy title for any name from the Indian subcontinent, whether or not it actually has a true affiliation with the religion.
1
"just like an unqualified use of the term Spanish name somewhat implies that it is not restricted to the Basque population, and that it is probably not used in France"
This is a very bad example.
Spanish name simply means "name in Spanish", Basque name simply means "name in Basque". The "adjectivation" regarding a name should be refered to language, not to political administrations. If pointing the geopolitical use is important, the label should be "name used in...".
Basque names are not only used in Basque Country under Spanish jurisdiction, but in Basque Country under French jurisdiction. And, regarding the political feelings among Basques and Catalans, to call "Spanish name" a Basque name (or a Catalan name) can be offensive.
I don't know the political/language/religious situation and the feelings in India, but I know very well the political/language situation in Catalonia, Basque Country and Spain.
This is a very bad example.
Spanish name simply means "name in Spanish", Basque name simply means "name in Basque". The "adjectivation" regarding a name should be refered to language, not to political administrations. If pointing the geopolitical use is important, the label should be "name used in...".
Basque names are not only used in Basque Country under Spanish jurisdiction, but in Basque Country under French jurisdiction. And, regarding the political feelings among Basques and Catalans, to call "Spanish name" a Basque name (or a Catalan name) can be offensive.
I don't know the political/language/religious situation and the feelings in India, but I know very well the political/language situation in Catalonia, Basque Country and Spain.
1
In most of India, a [something] name means a name commonly used by people called [something] by the people doing the discussion, and not commonly used by others except in imitation. For example, if I told you a name was Bengali, I would mean that it is a name commonly used by people who you and I called Bengali, and not much by others. Note that the class referred to are not necessarily people who call themselves Bengali, except in so far as that coincides with who we (you and I) call Bengali.
The `you' is of course the general we on this board.
In any case, the name need not be, and often is not, derived in the Bengali language. So, I disagree with your claim that it should refer to the language: English national adjectives simply do not work that way. A Spanish language name is simply called that: whereas a Spanish name is the name of a Spanish person. So, all depends on what we commonly call Spanish, and the force of my example depends on whether most people would consider a Spanish Basques as Spanish.
We enter a political debate whether we should: but, I believed that they are indeed considered Spanish by most of the world today.
In any case, we should probably take this discussion to the lounge. As far as the record here is concerned, let me leave it at an unqualified apology for having caused hurt.
The `you' is of course the general we on this board.
In any case, the name need not be, and often is not, derived in the Bengali language. So, I disagree with your claim that it should refer to the language: English national adjectives simply do not work that way. A Spanish language name is simply called that: whereas a Spanish name is the name of a Spanish person. So, all depends on what we commonly call Spanish, and the force of my example depends on whether most people would consider a Spanish Basques as Spanish.
We enter a political debate whether we should: but, I believed that they are indeed considered Spanish by most of the world today.
In any case, we should probably take this discussion to the lounge. As far as the record here is concerned, let me leave it at an unqualified apology for having caused hurt.
1
"A Spanish language name is simply called that: whereas a Spanish name is the name of a Spanish person."
Not in onomastics works, which are linguistic matter. In Spain, a lot of people use names in English and these are not Spanish names, are simply English names (names in English) used in Spain/by Spanish people: Kevin, Jessica, Vanessa... (Probably with time they could be assimilated to Spanish and considered Spanish names [from English origin], but this is a long way.)
And Basque names are used not only by Basques (in North and in South) or Spanish, but in Idaho... are they Basque names or are they American names? A Basque name is a name in Basque, used in Bilbao, in Barcelona or in Bloise.
"English national adjectives simply do not work that way."
If you check reliable sources of Welsh names (as Gruffudd's works or Iain O'hAnnaid's website) or of Irish names (as Ó Corráin and Maguire's work) you can verify that English national adjectives in names work in that way. In onomastics and in linguistics at least.
"For example, if I told you a name was Bengali, I would mean that it is a name commonly used by people who you and I called Bengali, and not much by others. Note that the class referred to are not necessarily people who call themselves Bengali, except in so far as that coincides with who we (you and I) call Bengali."
Then, the Indian use is perhaps the exception in onomastics because its reality in languages, religions, cultures... I don't know, I believe you because you know the Indian reality, so if you say "Bengali name is a name used in by Bengali people", I can think that this is not linguistically/onomastically accurated but I accept that in references to India, the adjective refers to geographical origin and not to linguistic adscription.
But if you say Welsh name, Basque name, Sardinian name, Breton name, Occitan name, Finnish name, Nahuatl name, Armenian name, Kurdish name... the adjective indicates the origin language of the name and it is not a reference to the passport of person who is named this.
Not in onomastics works, which are linguistic matter. In Spain, a lot of people use names in English and these are not Spanish names, are simply English names (names in English) used in Spain/by Spanish people: Kevin, Jessica, Vanessa... (Probably with time they could be assimilated to Spanish and considered Spanish names [from English origin], but this is a long way.)
And Basque names are used not only by Basques (in North and in South) or Spanish, but in Idaho... are they Basque names or are they American names? A Basque name is a name in Basque, used in Bilbao, in Barcelona or in Bloise.
"English national adjectives simply do not work that way."
If you check reliable sources of Welsh names (as Gruffudd's works or Iain O'hAnnaid's website) or of Irish names (as Ó Corráin and Maguire's work) you can verify that English national adjectives in names work in that way. In onomastics and in linguistics at least.
"For example, if I told you a name was Bengali, I would mean that it is a name commonly used by people who you and I called Bengali, and not much by others. Note that the class referred to are not necessarily people who call themselves Bengali, except in so far as that coincides with who we (you and I) call Bengali."
Then, the Indian use is perhaps the exception in onomastics because its reality in languages, religions, cultures... I don't know, I believe you because you know the Indian reality, so if you say "Bengali name is a name used in by Bengali people", I can think that this is not linguistically/onomastically accurated but I accept that in references to India, the adjective refers to geographical origin and not to linguistic adscription.
But if you say Welsh name, Basque name, Sardinian name, Breton name, Occitan name, Finnish name, Nahuatl name, Armenian name, Kurdish name... the adjective indicates the origin language of the name and it is not a reference to the passport of person who is named this.
1
"Not in onomastics works, which are linguistic matter."
In that case, this conversation would not have started: Hindu is not a language, and neither is Indian. (Indian is as much a language as European is!)
"And Basque names are used not only by Basques (in North and in South) or Spanish, but in Idaho... are they Basque names or are they American names? A Basque name is a name in Basque, used in Bilbao, in Barcelona or in Bloise."
and
"the adjective refers to geographical origin and not to linguistic adscription"
There was nothing geographical in what I said: I said the adjective refers to the culture. A nation is not defined, at least since the rise of the modern era, politically, but by the identity of the people, both internally and externally. A Bengali moving to the US is still a Bengali till (s)he becomes American. I think it is a narrow view perhaps motivated by an European sensibility, where the prime attribute of culture relevant for onomastics is the language use, to consider only that aspect of culture.
You know much more of this subject than I do. I can only point out that if, indeed, onomastics is using a linguistic adjective where it should be using a cultural one, it is making a mistake. An Southwest American usage in name can be different from a Northeastern one not because they speak different languages, though they might, but *because* they are somewhat separate cultures. Similarly, a Judeo-christian tradition binding most of the western world reflects itself in naming patterns. A study of names which ignores this in its standard vocabulary, is making it harder than it should for people to express facts about names clearly.
I had always thought an Irish name was a name traditionally used by the Irish, whether or not it can be traced to any Gaelic feature, Irish or otherwise. It just happened that this coincided with names that are either Irish in the linguistic sense, or whose phonological pattern has been made Irish.
In that case, this conversation would not have started: Hindu is not a language, and neither is Indian. (Indian is as much a language as European is!)
"And Basque names are used not only by Basques (in North and in South) or Spanish, but in Idaho... are they Basque names or are they American names? A Basque name is a name in Basque, used in Bilbao, in Barcelona or in Bloise."
and
"the adjective refers to geographical origin and not to linguistic adscription"
There was nothing geographical in what I said: I said the adjective refers to the culture. A nation is not defined, at least since the rise of the modern era, politically, but by the identity of the people, both internally and externally. A Bengali moving to the US is still a Bengali till (s)he becomes American. I think it is a narrow view perhaps motivated by an European sensibility, where the prime attribute of culture relevant for onomastics is the language use, to consider only that aspect of culture.
You know much more of this subject than I do. I can only point out that if, indeed, onomastics is using a linguistic adjective where it should be using a cultural one, it is making a mistake. An Southwest American usage in name can be different from a Northeastern one not because they speak different languages, though they might, but *because* they are somewhat separate cultures. Similarly, a Judeo-christian tradition binding most of the western world reflects itself in naming patterns. A study of names which ignores this in its standard vocabulary, is making it harder than it should for people to express facts about names clearly.
I had always thought an Irish name was a name traditionally used by the Irish, whether or not it can be traced to any Gaelic feature, Irish or otherwise. It just happened that this coincided with names that are either Irish in the linguistic sense, or whose phonological pattern has been made Irish.
1