New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Legitimacy
in reply to a message by mirfak
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.
Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com
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.
Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com
1
Replies
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