This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

Re: -iyah
Yup I see what you mean :) It makes sense. Might not be the choice I'd have made, but there's definitely something to say for it. Diego is a tricky example, bc of it's popularity in Belgium and France, which can't be explained by a big Hispanic community. Jayden would also be a tricky, despite it being so popular with us, I'd NEVER consider it a Dutch name. It seems a subjective difference. But I guess that might be why Mike chose "Usage" instead of "Origin" or something like that to describe 'an English name'.

Photobucket
vote up1vote down

Replies

Assigning the usages is not overly scientific -- I do not have a well-defined process for this. A usage may have been assigned for any of the following reasons:- the name is well-established as being traditional to that culture/language/region
- the name is used by a broad segment of the population (relative to the use in the other listed usages)
- the name's use is notable given its origins (for example if a particular Chinese name gained a bit of currency among English-speakers, which would not be typical, I might list English as a usage).I'm sure there are many names that have usages listed which are questionable. It's one of the things that gets tinkered with the most.Another part of the problem is that the deep and multi-year statistics available for the US, France, etc. are lacking in so many other places.
vote up1vote down
I think it's been a very wise choice to use the wording 'usage', because the word itself implies a certain degree of subjectivity. I can see it must be tricky to assign usages. I reckon often there something to be said both for and against assigning a certain usage.
vote up1vote down