New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesThe "New" BTN
Am I the only person that has issues with BTN listing male names as unisex and including misspellings ad made up names on their site? I thought BTN was supposed to be about real names, not crap.
1
Replies
Well, if the names are on the site, it's pretty obvious that they have been used by someone. I don't think this site is trying to encourage or discourage you from using any names on here. It's not like they're telling you to name your daughter Madison or your son Jaxon. (Personally, I think a lot of the names on here sound stupid, but they are definitely real names.)
1
You could have worded your opinion in a more respectful way, given the effort that is put into this website and the fact that you have access to this website for free.
Also, it is an undeniable fact that some historically male names have become unisex or have pretty much drifted to the female side entirely. Stubbornly denying these names' evolution to unisex or nearly entirely feminine would be like discarding the thousands if not millions of female bearers, pretending that they don't exist at all. Well, these females are real and alive, and so the usage of these originally male names on females is real, making these names no longer exclusively male names. Get with the times and deal with it.
Lastly, when it comes to names, there are no misspellings - only main spellings (or original spellings) and variant spellings. It doesn't work like words in a dictionary, which have a set spelling for all times, with all deviant spellings being a misspelling. With names, there is no such thing as one truly correct spelling vs. misspellings. Madison and Madisen, for example, are perfectly legitimate. The latter spelling may not be appealing to you personally - it doesn't appeal to me, either - but it would be considered a variant spelling, not a misspelling.
Also, it is an undeniable fact that some historically male names have become unisex or have pretty much drifted to the female side entirely. Stubbornly denying these names' evolution to unisex or nearly entirely feminine would be like discarding the thousands if not millions of female bearers, pretending that they don't exist at all. Well, these females are real and alive, and so the usage of these originally male names on females is real, making these names no longer exclusively male names. Get with the times and deal with it.
Lastly, when it comes to names, there are no misspellings - only main spellings (or original spellings) and variant spellings. It doesn't work like words in a dictionary, which have a set spelling for all times, with all deviant spellings being a misspelling. With names, there is no such thing as one truly correct spelling vs. misspellings. Madison and Madisen, for example, are perfectly legitimate. The latter spelling may not be appealing to you personally - it doesn't appeal to me, either - but it would be considered a variant spelling, not a misspelling.
1
... actually orthography of lexical units other than proper names is labile as well ...
What I mean is that in both cases, prescriptive "grammar" is artificial and can only manage to define a formal language (and script and orthography) that soon falls out of practical use. Not that it isn't done: Bengalis in India and many cultures in Europe (including, for example, the French) tried something like that---and have/had standardized spellings both for names and for proper words in their respective languages. That did not stop the change in language: language (including names in the case of Bengali, at least) merrily evolved to become and remain incorrect, and in many cases now is hopping from one incorrect form to another :-)
Furthermore, a prescriptive stance is inherently problematic since the linguistic faculty in humans is probably a separate faculty than that which reasons; language evolves due to its own internal and external processes, and strict logical construction gets violated very fast. As a result, taking a prescription always involves making arbitrary choices, and needs to come more from the realm of a committee of scholarly *personae* whose fiat would have standing in the community, and not be subject to the debate and uncertainty of scholarly *thought*.
With that experience most of us take a descriptive stance where, at least, the standard of evaluation is clear even when not attainable. And this website does state it. But, it is not the obvious choice, in fact, to the contrary, it is a pretty difficult concept that there is no "correct" beyond "conventional" in this realm. At least for people trained in some traditions.
What I mean is that in both cases, prescriptive "grammar" is artificial and can only manage to define a formal language (and script and orthography) that soon falls out of practical use. Not that it isn't done: Bengalis in India and many cultures in Europe (including, for example, the French) tried something like that---and have/had standardized spellings both for names and for proper words in their respective languages. That did not stop the change in language: language (including names in the case of Bengali, at least) merrily evolved to become and remain incorrect, and in many cases now is hopping from one incorrect form to another :-)
Furthermore, a prescriptive stance is inherently problematic since the linguistic faculty in humans is probably a separate faculty than that which reasons; language evolves due to its own internal and external processes, and strict logical construction gets violated very fast. As a result, taking a prescription always involves making arbitrary choices, and needs to come more from the realm of a committee of scholarly *personae* whose fiat would have standing in the community, and not be subject to the debate and uncertainty of scholarly *thought*.
With that experience most of us take a descriptive stance where, at least, the standard of evaluation is clear even when not attainable. And this website does state it. But, it is not the obvious choice, in fact, to the contrary, it is a pretty difficult concept that there is no "correct" beyond "conventional" in this realm. At least for people trained in some traditions.
1
If a name has been the official name of a living human being, it is a "real name." Any other definition of "real name" goes against the meaning of the word "real."
To say that a name that is the legal name of a human being is not "real" seems to me to be an example of the psychological defense mechanism of denial. Unfortunately, denying the existence of things you don't like doesn't affect their existence.
To say that a name that is the legal name of a human being is not "real" seems to me to be an example of the psychological defense mechanism of denial. Unfortunately, denying the existence of things you don't like doesn't affect their existence.
1
Maybe you are the only one. Read "About this site" http://www.behindthename.com/preface.php
It's not supposed to be an authoritative reference for which names are "real." It's meant to catalog names, what they mean, where they come from, and how they are used. Not how they "should" be used.
I'm afraid nobody wants to be told how names should be used, or that a name they have seen used and are curious about, is not "real."
It's not supposed to be an authoritative reference for which names are "real." It's meant to catalog names, what they mean, where they come from, and how they are used. Not how they "should" be used.
I'm afraid nobody wants to be told how names should be used, or that a name they have seen used and are curious about, is not "real."
1
Could you give any examples of the names you are referring to and explain why you think the descriptions are incorrect?
1
Usage is a hugely important part of the study of names. You might not *like* modern usages, but they exist and form part of the body of available name knowledge. Pretending that male names aren't drifting to unisex won't stop it!
1