New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesTavish
I once saw this name on a baby name poll. The OP said it was the Scottish form of Thomas & means "twin". I did not find it here, though. I have seen it, w/ this meaning & background, and a few other sites, but they are all "baby name" sites, which I know are not the most reliable. I did a google search & saw sites for baby names & some that had random people w/ the name Tavish. Is there a reason it is not listed here? It has become one of my favorites. Does anyone know if the meaning I have found is correct? Is it even a "real" name? Any info is appreciated. I would also like to see it included on this site.
1
Replies
one thing....
Don't worry that because some people on this site say books and sites which involve 'baby name' in the title are all automatically terrible and totally unreliable. It is OFTEN the case, true, but don't let that put you off ever using them!
Don't worry that because some people on this site say books and sites which involve 'baby name' in the title are all automatically terrible and totally unreliable. It is OFTEN the case, true, but don't let that put you off ever using them!
1
I didn't specify, although I figure it's fairly obvious, but it is a male name.
1
Is it a real name? Yes. Is very common modernly? No.
There are two Scottish-Gaelic forms of "Thomas:" "Tòmas" & "Tàmhas." As I understand it, "Tòmas" is Scottish twist on the primary Irish-Gaelic form, "Tómas." "Tàmhas," on the otherhand, is a natively Scottish translation from English and an older form at that.
"Tavish" is a reanglicized form of "Tàmhas" based off of its vocative/genitive tense.
I'll explain using a similar name: "James" is translated into Scottish-Gaelic as "Seumas." "Seumas" is the nominative form of the name, pronounced [SHEY-mus]. The nominative tense is the default tense, and used when talking about "Seumas." But the vocative tense, similar to the genative, is used when talking to "Seumas." This is expressed in Gaelic as "a Sheumais" (the 'a' is a vocative particle). In this tense, "Sheumais" is pronounced [HEY-mish]. It is this vocative pronunciation that gave rise to the reanglicized form of "Hamish."
So for "Tàmhas," pronounced [TAW-vas], the vocative form is "Thàmhais," pronounced [TAW-vish] or [HAW-vish], and this has been reanglicized "Tavish."
And there you go.
Now I don't think "Tavish" is common as a given-name at all, now or ever really. Thusly it is not included on this website.
And Chrisell is correct in correlating it to the surname "MacTavish" because Gaelic names uses the genitive tense after the 'Mac' or 'Ó.' In this case, the original surname is "Mac Thàmhais," thus the 'Son of David' attribution is incorrect.
There are two Scottish-Gaelic forms of "Thomas:" "Tòmas" & "Tàmhas." As I understand it, "Tòmas" is Scottish twist on the primary Irish-Gaelic form, "Tómas." "Tàmhas," on the otherhand, is a natively Scottish translation from English and an older form at that.
"Tavish" is a reanglicized form of "Tàmhas" based off of its vocative/genitive tense.
I'll explain using a similar name: "James" is translated into Scottish-Gaelic as "Seumas." "Seumas" is the nominative form of the name, pronounced [SHEY-mus]. The nominative tense is the default tense, and used when talking about "Seumas." But the vocative tense, similar to the genative, is used when talking to "Seumas." This is expressed in Gaelic as "a Sheumais" (the 'a' is a vocative particle). In this tense, "Sheumais" is pronounced [HEY-mish]. It is this vocative pronunciation that gave rise to the reanglicized form of "Hamish."
So for "Tàmhas," pronounced [TAW-vas], the vocative form is "Thàmhais," pronounced [TAW-vish] or [HAW-vish], and this has been reanglicized "Tavish."
And there you go.
Now I don't think "Tavish" is common as a given-name at all, now or ever really. Thusly it is not included on this website.
And Chrisell is correct in correlating it to the surname "MacTavish" because Gaelic names uses the genitive tense after the 'Mac' or 'Ó.' In this case, the original surname is "Mac Thàmhais," thus the 'Son of David' attribution is incorrect.
1