New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Would it help
in reply to a message by তন্ময় ভট
"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.
Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com
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.
Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com
1
Replies
"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