New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesLegitimacy of "Arianell"
Can anyone validate that Arianell is a legitimate Welsh name? Several places online say it is a Welsh feminine name meaning "silver," but I have no way of knowing if they are true. Does anyone have any info on Arianell?
Current favorites: Flora Myfanwy, Rosamund Efa, Augusta Iseabail, Lilias Virginia
Current favorites: Flora Myfanwy, Rosamund Efa, Augusta Iseabail, Lilias Virginia
1
Replies
I found this article that could shed some light on the 'silver' angle:
http://medievalscotland.org/problem/names/arianrhod.shtml
If you want to Google further yourself, you can use 'Arganhell' (given as the oldest known form of the name) and 'Ariannell' (variant with two n's instead of one) in addition to simply 'Arianell'.
http://medievalscotland.org/problem/names/arianrhod.shtml
If you want to Google further yourself, you can use 'Arganhell' (given as the oldest known form of the name) and 'Ariannell' (variant with two n's instead of one) in addition to simply 'Arianell'.
1
Arianell fails what I personally call the "Facebook test": Among the 400 million or so current members of Facebook there seems to be not a single person with that name. In my opinion, this indicates a low probability that Arianell is *currently* in any significant use anywhere, be it in Wales or in other places.
Searches for Arianelle (with an "e" added) and Arianella (with an "a" added) turn up only a handful of people on Facebook that might come from countries with Romance languages, according to their family names.
Searches for Arianelle (with an "e" added) and Arianella (with an "a" added) turn up only a handful of people on Facebook that might come from countries with Romance languages, according to their family names.
1
Just because Arianell does not occur on facebook, does not mean it is not legitimate. It is the name of a saint, the name may be obscure and rare, but it is legitimate. Here is a link about the saint: http://saints.sqpn.com/sainta7g.htm
1
I fully agree with you: You can't check with facebook whether a name is legitimate or not.
But, as I said in my post, you can get at a probability whether a name currently is in actual use anywhere, which in many circumstances is an interesting info in itself.
Anyway, this seems to be an interesting and almost philosophical question to me: If you have a name that was in use several centuries ago, and you have no idea whether it is still in use, is it legitimate then, and if yes, in which sense?
Pepin, for just one silly example, was a perfectly legimitate name during the times of the Merovingians, in the year 700 or so, in their kingdom that included large parts of what is Germany today. Does this make Pepin a legitimate German name until today?
But, as I said in my post, you can get at a probability whether a name currently is in actual use anywhere, which in many circumstances is an interesting info in itself.
Anyway, this seems to be an interesting and almost philosophical question to me: If you have a name that was in use several centuries ago, and you have no idea whether it is still in use, is it legitimate then, and if yes, in which sense?
Pepin, for just one silly example, was a perfectly legimitate name during the times of the Merovingians, in the year 700 or so, in their kingdom that included large parts of what is Germany today. Does this make Pepin a legitimate German name until today?
1
I don't think that the concept of "legitimacy" itself is a good one for English speaking countries, because one can legally name a child anything one wants in those countries (except perhaps New Zealand.) Therefore all names are legitimate.
In countries which have laws which limit the names one can give, you can perhaps use "legitimacy" as a relevant concept. But in the USA and the UK, all names are "legitimate". Whether they have ever been used in the past for real people is an interesting question, but that they never have been does not reflect on their "legitimacy".
In countries which have laws which limit the names one can give, you can perhaps use "legitimacy" as a relevant concept. But in the USA and the UK, all names are "legitimate". Whether they have ever been used in the past for real people is an interesting question, but that they never have been does not reflect on their "legitimacy".
1
When speaking of linguistics, and onomastics is a part of linguistics, "legitimate" has to be understood as "conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards", being this principles, rules and standards purely linguistic ones and not civil law.
That is, a name can be legal (accepted by the civil law to be registered) and not be legitimate because it doesn't conform to the language rules, spelling, for instance. In the same way, a name can be illegal even being completely legit.
In the USA all the names can be legal, but not all of them are legitimate. The legitimacy or not doesn't depend on civil tribunals or laws, but on linguistic rules.
That is, a name can be legal (accepted by the civil law to be registered) and not be legitimate because it doesn't conform to the language rules, spelling, for instance. In the same way, a name can be illegal even being completely legit.
In the USA all the names can be legal, but not all of them are legitimate. The legitimacy or not doesn't depend on civil tribunals or laws, but on linguistic rules.
1
Can you give an example of how a name could not conform to a "linguistic rule" in English?
If someone wanted the form of an English name to change depending on whether it was the subject or object of a sentence, that wouldn't conform to English linguistic rules. But I can't see how any combination of sounds that was pronounceable in English would defy any linguistic rules as a name by itself.
If someone wanted the form of an English name to change depending on whether it was the subject or object of a sentence, that wouldn't conform to English linguistic rules. But I can't see how any combination of sounds that was pronounceable in English would defy any linguistic rules as a name by itself.
This message was edited 5/6/2010, 1:23 PM
1
You are thinking in morphosyntactic rules, but there are other linguistic rules as the spelling rules, which are nowadays the most currently breaked in names in the US.
A name which uses QL, QR, QA, QE, QI or QO will not conform one of the spelling rules in English, because in this language the Q has to be followed by a U (the transcriptions and transliterations of other languages, obviously, don't count because they follow not the English rules, but other rules); that is, Qameron couldn't be a legitimate name in English, because it is breaking a linguistic rule, in this case, a spelling one.
The same goes for the use of apostrophes inside the names, because in English the apostrophe is used to mark elisions in some contractions (isn't, don't...) or in the case of the Saxon genitive. So Ka'yasia couldn't be a legitimate name.
In the case of languages with an official regulator (RAE, Académie...) the ultimate linguistic authority to dictate the language rules (pronunciation, spelling, morphology, sintaxys, semantics, pragmatics, vocabulary) is very clear. In the case of the English, there is not academy, but that doesn't mean that there is not linguistic autority, which resides in authoritative sources, as some recognized linguistic works (dictionaries, grammars), and the uses of reputated institutions (mainly universities as Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard...) and educated speakers.
Since the languages evolve, the rules and the standards are not static and vary; a spurious form can be later accepted as legitimate. But until that the accepted rules and standards change, the name will be not legitimate or spurious.
A name which uses QL, QR, QA, QE, QI or QO will not conform one of the spelling rules in English, because in this language the Q has to be followed by a U (the transcriptions and transliterations of other languages, obviously, don't count because they follow not the English rules, but other rules); that is, Qameron couldn't be a legitimate name in English, because it is breaking a linguistic rule, in this case, a spelling one.
The same goes for the use of apostrophes inside the names, because in English the apostrophe is used to mark elisions in some contractions (isn't, don't...) or in the case of the Saxon genitive. So Ka'yasia couldn't be a legitimate name.
In the case of languages with an official regulator (RAE, Académie...) the ultimate linguistic authority to dictate the language rules (pronunciation, spelling, morphology, sintaxys, semantics, pragmatics, vocabulary) is very clear. In the case of the English, there is not academy, but that doesn't mean that there is not linguistic autority, which resides in authoritative sources, as some recognized linguistic works (dictionaries, grammars), and the uses of reputated institutions (mainly universities as Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard...) and educated speakers.
Since the languages evolve, the rules and the standards are not static and vary; a spurious form can be later accepted as legitimate. But until that the accepted rules and standards change, the name will be not legitimate or spurious.
1
The problem with this is that English has commonly been adopting words from foreign languages and retaining an approximation of their original pronuciation along with the original spelling, which doesn't correspond to original English orthographic rules, for quite some time.
If it is not "legitimate" to use a spelling such as Qameron in English, then it is not "legitimate" to use Gaelic spellings such as Niamh or Sean when pronouncing those names as "Neeve" and "Shawn", since those spellings do not correspond with normal English orthography. But no one ever tells an American parent who names a child Sean that they have used a spelling which is not "legitimate".
There are now enough uses of Arabic names like Al Qaeda in English speaking newspapers, along with trade names like Qiana, that use a "q" without a "u" that this orthographic form should be familiar to most literate English speakers.
I would agree that a spelling which makes a name almost impossible to pronounce, such as using writing a name "Mara" and asking people to pronounce it like "Sarah", would not be orthographically "legitimate". But it seems to be that a spelling like Qameron, where it would be clear to the great majority of literate English speakers that it would be pronounced the same as Cameron, should not be called "illegitimate" just because it doesn't follow a rather arbitrary orthographic rule.
This also doesn't seem to recognize that names just don't have standard spellings the way dictionary words have. I really can't imagine Harvard, or even Oxford or Cambridge, refusing to use a spelling like Qameron or Ka'yasia in official records if that was the legal name of the person being referred to. Editors don't "correct" spellings of names the way they would correct spellings of dictionary words. They would be wrong to do so.
If it is not "legitimate" to use a spelling such as Qameron in English, then it is not "legitimate" to use Gaelic spellings such as Niamh or Sean when pronouncing those names as "Neeve" and "Shawn", since those spellings do not correspond with normal English orthography. But no one ever tells an American parent who names a child Sean that they have used a spelling which is not "legitimate".
There are now enough uses of Arabic names like Al Qaeda in English speaking newspapers, along with trade names like Qiana, that use a "q" without a "u" that this orthographic form should be familiar to most literate English speakers.
I would agree that a spelling which makes a name almost impossible to pronounce, such as using writing a name "Mara" and asking people to pronounce it like "Sarah", would not be orthographically "legitimate". But it seems to be that a spelling like Qameron, where it would be clear to the great majority of literate English speakers that it would be pronounced the same as Cameron, should not be called "illegitimate" just because it doesn't follow a rather arbitrary orthographic rule.
This also doesn't seem to recognize that names just don't have standard spellings the way dictionary words have. I really can't imagine Harvard, or even Oxford or Cambridge, refusing to use a spelling like Qameron or Ka'yasia in official records if that was the legal name of the person being referred to. Editors don't "correct" spellings of names the way they would correct spellings of dictionary words. They would be wrong to do so.
1
Here are several things which are mixed.
In one hand, there are names from other languages that, obviously, follow the rules of those languages (Niamh, Sean). Those names are legit in THEIR languages, they are not English names, even being used by English speakers.
The same goes for transliterated Arabic names. Even if the educated speakers know what a group of letters represents in Arabic transcriptions, that doesn't mean that the use of this group of letters is legitimate when spelling English names or words.
One thing is if those names are legitimate (yes, they are in their languages), another one is they can be considered legitimate in English because some of them have been used for a long time (it would depend from name to name) and another it is if legitimate to use foreign names or not. In this last case, it is a problem of acceptability.
Qameron doesn't follow the English accepted standard rule, the English rule; that means, Qameron can be logical, if you want, but it is not legitimate in English. If the subgroup using the spelling Qameron succeed and a critic mass of English speakers accept Qameron as a standard spelling, then the English spelling rule would vary and the name would become legitimate; until then, it is not legitimate.
The names have standard spellings. This spellings are determinated by tradition, stablished by authoritative works, as Biblical translations, for instance.
That one person use a personal spelling doesn't convert this spelling in a legitimate one, just in the same way that with the words. It is only when a critical mass of speakers, mainly educated, accept it as acceptable that it will be legitimate. Until then, it will be just an eccentric use (with historical, sociological... value).
When referring to some individual, obviously the spelling of her or his name will be respected, just as if he or she chooses to spell the name with numbers (z859d), with symbols (as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince or the urban myth L-a) or whatever. That doesn't legitimate in any way the form, because to be legitimate a name has to conform to the linguistic rules, among them spelling (and numbers and symbols are not elements usable when spelling words and names), and the accepted standards.
In one hand, there are names from other languages that, obviously, follow the rules of those languages (Niamh, Sean). Those names are legit in THEIR languages, they are not English names, even being used by English speakers.
The same goes for transliterated Arabic names. Even if the educated speakers know what a group of letters represents in Arabic transcriptions, that doesn't mean that the use of this group of letters is legitimate when spelling English names or words.
One thing is if those names are legitimate (yes, they are in their languages), another one is they can be considered legitimate in English because some of them have been used for a long time (it would depend from name to name) and another it is if legitimate to use foreign names or not. In this last case, it is a problem of acceptability.
Qameron doesn't follow the English accepted standard rule, the English rule; that means, Qameron can be logical, if you want, but it is not legitimate in English. If the subgroup using the spelling Qameron succeed and a critic mass of English speakers accept Qameron as a standard spelling, then the English spelling rule would vary and the name would become legitimate; until then, it is not legitimate.
The names have standard spellings. This spellings are determinated by tradition, stablished by authoritative works, as Biblical translations, for instance.
That one person use a personal spelling doesn't convert this spelling in a legitimate one, just in the same way that with the words. It is only when a critical mass of speakers, mainly educated, accept it as acceptable that it will be legitimate. Until then, it will be just an eccentric use (with historical, sociological... value).
When referring to some individual, obviously the spelling of her or his name will be respected, just as if he or she chooses to spell the name with numbers (z859d), with symbols (as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince or the urban myth L-a) or whatever. That doesn't legitimate in any way the form, because to be legitimate a name has to conform to the linguistic rules, among them spelling (and numbers and symbols are not elements usable when spelling words and names), and the accepted standards.
1
Your definition of legitimate is begging the question of exactly whose acceptance is required for legitimacy of something.
I think you need to stick to the term "standard" where you are using "legitimate." It is much less culturally loaded, and you sacrifice none of your meaning.
"If the subgroup using the spelling Qameron succeed [succeed in what?] and a critic mass of English speakers accept Qameron as a standard spelling, then the English spelling rule would vary and the name would become legitimate; until then, it is not legitimate."
Why not just say that if enough people used it, Qameron would become a standard spelling? There seems to be no other legitimate point in your statement.
I think you need to stick to the term "standard" where you are using "legitimate." It is much less culturally loaded, and you sacrifice none of your meaning.
"If the subgroup using the spelling Qameron succeed [succeed in what?] and a critic mass of English speakers accept Qameron as a standard spelling, then the English spelling rule would vary and the name would become legitimate; until then, it is not legitimate."
Why not just say that if enough people used it, Qameron would become a standard spelling? There seems to be no other legitimate point in your statement.
This message was edited 5/8/2010, 1:37 AM
1
It is not MY definition of legitimate, but Merriam Webster's definition and implies the concepts of "rule" and "standard".
The rules and the standards, different concepts, are determinated by the group of people who have the authority, in some European languages one academy, in other European languages a mass of educated speakers.
On the other hand "standard" and "legitimate" are not the same. One thing can be "legitimate" and not be "standard" (as in the case of old variants, dialectal variants... that doesn't break the rules but are not the common ones).
In the example, if the subgroup using Qameron achieve that this spelling is not seen as odd / my-parents-are-illiterate-who-don't-know-how-to-spell / put any negative connotation and lecture associated to the spelling (that is why used "succeed") and Qameron become a substantially uniform and well established by usage in writing of the educated and widely recognized as acceptable spelling (that is, "standard spelling"), the English spelling rule would vary (from "Q can't precede A without a U" to "Q can represent the sound [k] directly before A") and the name [Qameron] would become legitimate (the spelling will be conformed to the rule, that will affect other words and names).
The use of "legitimate" in relation to names is relevant to English speakers. Googling "legitimate names" gives 17,800 results, "legitimate name" 59,500 results, "legit names" 930 and "legit name" 25,300; many of them, from the US, where any name can be legal.
The rules and the standards, different concepts, are determinated by the group of people who have the authority, in some European languages one academy, in other European languages a mass of educated speakers.
On the other hand "standard" and "legitimate" are not the same. One thing can be "legitimate" and not be "standard" (as in the case of old variants, dialectal variants... that doesn't break the rules but are not the common ones).
In the example, if the subgroup using Qameron achieve that this spelling is not seen as odd / my-parents-are-illiterate-who-don't-know-how-to-spell / put any negative connotation and lecture associated to the spelling (that is why used "succeed") and Qameron become a substantially uniform and well established by usage in writing of the educated and widely recognized as acceptable spelling (that is, "standard spelling"), the English spelling rule would vary (from "Q can't precede A without a U" to "Q can represent the sound [k] directly before A") and the name [Qameron] would become legitimate (the spelling will be conformed to the rule, that will affect other words and names).
The use of "legitimate" in relation to names is relevant to English speakers. Googling "legitimate names" gives 17,800 results, "legitimate name" 59,500 results, "legit names" 930 and "legit name" 25,300; many of them, from the US, where any name can be legal.
1
Yes, it certainly is the dictionary definition. The problem is that the dictionary definition of legitimate, legitimate though it may be, is incomplete because acceptance and recognition are being assumed to refer to some authority. So of course it is legitimate to ask who is the authority, and who decides that it is to be recognized. The real answer always must boil down to, "I, the person who is using the word and assigning legitimacy in this context, am the ultimate authority, in the context of what I'm saying." You are choosing what is a good source of authority, whether you are claiming to represent some establishment or not.
Not to suggest that there are no conventions about good sources of authority, or that such conventions aren't useful. But when you use the word legitimate, you're assuming that everyone else respects the same authorities as you do. And it's not necessarily the case, especially when it comes to something as non-standardized as names.
English "rules" are so fine-textured and exception-riddled that it's more reasonable to call them conventions. Since you say "standard" has a meaning that needs to be preserved, I'll propose that "conventional" is a better choice of word to describe name usages that you don't think of as legitimate. It's more accurate because it admits that a judgment is being made by someone. And it is more objective because the judgment is not implicitly being made by you, as when you use the word legitimate. Investing authority in "a mass of educated speakers" is too vague and subjective.
I believe American people google "legitimacy" of names because what they are really looking for is to prove that the name they like is not going to be sneered at as "not a real name." Or else they are trying to avoid names that might be sneered at. They're looking for judgments, not facts. "Legitimate" requires some judgment, some looking up to superiority, and you admit as much when you equate "not being seen as odd / from an uneducated background" with "success." (I'm not saying I don't agree with your judgments, but I don't agree that they are adequate for determining name "legitimacy" for academic or any other purposes.) "Conventional" directly refers to general acceptability. Distinguishing between conventionality and legitimacy makes you refer to yourself as a certain cultural authority, which no speaker can legitimately do. Yes, legitimacy is relevant, but it belongs on the Opinions board, as they say around here.
Not to suggest that there are no conventions about good sources of authority, or that such conventions aren't useful. But when you use the word legitimate, you're assuming that everyone else respects the same authorities as you do. And it's not necessarily the case, especially when it comes to something as non-standardized as names.
English "rules" are so fine-textured and exception-riddled that it's more reasonable to call them conventions. Since you say "standard" has a meaning that needs to be preserved, I'll propose that "conventional" is a better choice of word to describe name usages that you don't think of as legitimate. It's more accurate because it admits that a judgment is being made by someone. And it is more objective because the judgment is not implicitly being made by you, as when you use the word legitimate. Investing authority in "a mass of educated speakers" is too vague and subjective.
I believe American people google "legitimacy" of names because what they are really looking for is to prove that the name they like is not going to be sneered at as "not a real name." Or else they are trying to avoid names that might be sneered at. They're looking for judgments, not facts. "Legitimate" requires some judgment, some looking up to superiority, and you admit as much when you equate "not being seen as odd / from an uneducated background" with "success." (I'm not saying I don't agree with your judgments, but I don't agree that they are adequate for determining name "legitimacy" for academic or any other purposes.) "Conventional" directly refers to general acceptability. Distinguishing between conventionality and legitimacy makes you refer to yourself as a certain cultural authority, which no speaker can legitimately do. Yes, legitimacy is relevant, but it belongs on the Opinions board, as they say around here.
This message was edited 5/8/2010, 10:43 AM
1
I was explaining how the word legitimate us used and has to be understood when speaking in linguistics, also in academic contexts, for instance, because it is not synonymous of "legal". Since I was speaking in English, I used an authoritative source (and I explained how in English there is also linguistic authority) to explain that. CK Evans asked me for an English example where a name breaks a rule and I apported examples of English spelling rules (the spelling rules always are conventional, in any language, but they are rules and I said that the rules and standards depend on the group or groups having power). That is all.
If the concept of rule applied to English is not pleasant, if the concept that even a language without a linguistic regulator type academy as is the case of the English has elements (speakers, institutions...) with linguistic authority is a new one for some speakers, if the spelling rules should not be more rules and the spelling should be a free market, if any name and word should be immediately considered a rule in itself after its introduction and never a spurious form... that is all another thing that escape of the intended purpose of explain what one speaker means when saying "legitimate name" (or "legitimate form" when speaking of toponymy and general vocabulary).
If the concept of rule applied to English is not pleasant, if the concept that even a language without a linguistic regulator type academy as is the case of the English has elements (speakers, institutions...) with linguistic authority is a new one for some speakers, if the spelling rules should not be more rules and the spelling should be a free market, if any name and word should be immediately considered a rule in itself after its introduction and never a spurious form... that is all another thing that escape of the intended purpose of explain what one speaker means when saying "legitimate name" (or "legitimate form" when speaking of toponymy and general vocabulary).
1
Sorry, I guess there is no understanding to be made here. Have a nice day.
1
Could I ask a possibly related question? Sure, legitimacy can be defined; but what use is such a definition? When a culture gives free choice to use spellings for their own names, and these spellings are respected by all authority; when some subcultures freely invent names along with their spellings (i.e., when a subculture likes names and spellings which have no prior attestation); in such cultures/subcultures, which internal phenomenon cares about the legitimacy of these names?
And, why is the term legitimacy the correct term for this concept: shouldn't the word legitimacy be more about acceptance in the appropriate culture, not about its acceptance by the educated, or even literate, subsection?
Just confused.
And, why is the term legitimacy the correct term for this concept: shouldn't the word legitimacy be more about acceptance in the appropriate culture, not about its acceptance by the educated, or even literate, subsection?
Just confused.
1
CK Evans argued that the concept of legitimacy was inappropiate when speaking about English names because in most (if not all the English speaking countries) any name can be registered. Legitimate is sometimes synonym of legal (in this case, CK Evans will be absolutely right), but other times has other meanings and one of those meanings if the used when the people talk about legitimacy in onomastics.
I can't speak for all the languages and cultures, obviously, but in the case of the languages that I know in some degree (all of them European) the concept of legitimacy is relevant (that is why "legitimate" and "legit" are used by the speakers). I don't saying that legitimacy is the best word, the best term... just that the concept exists and is relevant.
On the other hand, acceptance is different from legitimacy. Something largely accepted will finish being legitimate, as I said in other posts, but not necessarily. Since the meaning of legitimate which I was refering to includes the concept of "standard", you have to keep in mind that who marks the standard is usually not the most large group, but the more powerful group.
I can't speak for all the languages and cultures, obviously, but in the case of the languages that I know in some degree (all of them European) the concept of legitimacy is relevant (that is why "legitimate" and "legit" are used by the speakers). I don't saying that legitimacy is the best word, the best term... just that the concept exists and is relevant.
On the other hand, acceptance is different from legitimacy. Something largely accepted will finish being legitimate, as I said in other posts, but not necessarily. Since the meaning of legitimate which I was refering to includes the concept of "standard", you have to keep in mind that who marks the standard is usually not the most large group, but the more powerful group.
1
Thank you for the lucid explanation.
I do see this concept existing in some cultural contexts in India like a, largely old-fashioned, bengali hindu community that would insist there is a proper (usually, but not exclusively, Sanskrit derived) spelling for a name. In other contexts, including the largest section of the current urban bengali generations, at least in Indian Bengal, the concept would seem rather odd: they will insist like CKE that names do not have standardized spellings, simply more common and less common ones. In practice, I can see that despite this insistence, the vast majority of them do follow the spellings of the names `legitimate' according to the older generation for those names which would be recognizable to them. But, they freely use other names, with non-standardized spellings, and do not bother about the legitimacy either of these names or of these spellings.
Everything I said above I meant to apply only to the spellings in Bengali: the English spellings have never been standardized, even for those expatriate Bengalis who could not spell their name in Bengali, and even though in modern urban India people often use English and the Roman script as the only means of communication in a wide circle. (With exceptions: the Calcutta University and a few other institutions used to `standardize' the English spellings of the traditional forenames and last names in the graduation etc. certificates issued by them, to the utter confusion of all legal bodies, Indian and foreign, unfamiliar with this custom. I do not know if they still do it. The telephone directories, similarly, often arbitrarily standardize the English spellings to a bizarre standards varying according to individual vagaries.)
I focused on Hindu Bengali communities specifically because details differ, but many of the remarks above do apply to other religions and regions as well.
I do see this concept existing in some cultural contexts in India like a, largely old-fashioned, bengali hindu community that would insist there is a proper (usually, but not exclusively, Sanskrit derived) spelling for a name. In other contexts, including the largest section of the current urban bengali generations, at least in Indian Bengal, the concept would seem rather odd: they will insist like CKE that names do not have standardized spellings, simply more common and less common ones. In practice, I can see that despite this insistence, the vast majority of them do follow the spellings of the names `legitimate' according to the older generation for those names which would be recognizable to them. But, they freely use other names, with non-standardized spellings, and do not bother about the legitimacy either of these names or of these spellings.
Everything I said above I meant to apply only to the spellings in Bengali: the English spellings have never been standardized, even for those expatriate Bengalis who could not spell their name in Bengali, and even though in modern urban India people often use English and the Roman script as the only means of communication in a wide circle. (With exceptions: the Calcutta University and a few other institutions used to `standardize' the English spellings of the traditional forenames and last names in the graduation etc. certificates issued by them, to the utter confusion of all legal bodies, Indian and foreign, unfamiliar with this custom. I do not know if they still do it. The telephone directories, similarly, often arbitrarily standardize the English spellings to a bizarre standards varying according to individual vagaries.)
I focused on Hindu Bengali communities specifically because details differ, but many of the remarks above do apply to other religions and regions as well.
1
Arianell would actually be fairly hard for a non-Welsh speaker to pronounce in a way that would be orthographically legitimate with its origin, as it contains a sound that doesn't exist in English: the Welsh letter ll.
1
Well, a little Googling seems to show that this name does occur in some early writings about St. Dyfrig of Wales as the name of a demoniac girl he cured.
http://books.google.com/books?id=so7R-Z1VB1wC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=arianell+wales&source=bl&ots=BruZoI-pc9&sig=uhGBfiBBXBkkIaULWxm5oCdJxKY&hl=en&ei=17LgS4uXKI2G9ATwzKy-CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=arianell&f=false
It also occurs in "Lives of the British Saints" by Baring-Gould:
http://books.google.com/books?id=n-QtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=arianell+wales&source=bl&ots=1VVbfh2QNJ&sig=Ba8ZclRdzmKe7zabPWB7kWxroN8&hl=en&ei=CLTgS5aEHJWS8QTszJ3UCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAUQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q&f=false
I do not know if modern historians think this person really existed or if her story is just a legend. And so far I have not been able to find any examples of Welsh women named Arianell besides this cured demoniac saint. But at least it is a name that goes back a while in this story of St. Dyfrig.
http://books.google.com/books?id=so7R-Z1VB1wC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=arianell+wales&source=bl&ots=BruZoI-pc9&sig=uhGBfiBBXBkkIaULWxm5oCdJxKY&hl=en&ei=17LgS4uXKI2G9ATwzKy-CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=arianell&f=false
It also occurs in "Lives of the British Saints" by Baring-Gould:
http://books.google.com/books?id=n-QtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=arianell+wales&source=bl&ots=1VVbfh2QNJ&sig=Ba8ZclRdzmKe7zabPWB7kWxroN8&hl=en&ei=CLTgS5aEHJWS8QTszJ3UCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAUQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q&f=false
I do not know if modern historians think this person really existed or if her story is just a legend. And so far I have not been able to find any examples of Welsh women named Arianell besides this cured demoniac saint. But at least it is a name that goes back a while in this story of St. Dyfrig.
1
Ah, fascinating! Thank you!
1