New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesHomophonic Neonyms...
A homophonic neonym is when a name has a contemporary origin, but sounds like an already established name.
Say a couple has a little boy who they named MARK. A conventional etymology would be something like MARK < MARCUS, "adherent of Mars" or, loosely, "war hawk." This is fair enough, lacking further information.
But suppose, in this case, the baby had a prominent birthmark that his parents found endearing and it inspired his name. In that case, "adherent of Mars" would not have been the etymology of his iteration of the name, rather the English word "mark" would have been (considering his parents' intentions). Casual acquaintances would probably never know the difference.
Before someone gets upset about its teasing prospects, descriptive names were quite common in earlier cultures. Biblical ESAU springs to mind.
"Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth." Ps. 127:4
JoHannah Jubilee, BenJudah Gabriel, Aaron Josiah, Jordan Uriah,
Maranatha Nissiah, (Anastasia Nike, 1992-1992), Jeshua David,
Shiloh Joshana, Elijah Daniel, Hezekiah Nathaniel, Zephaniah Joseph
Say a couple has a little boy who they named MARK. A conventional etymology would be something like MARK < MARCUS, "adherent of Mars" or, loosely, "war hawk." This is fair enough, lacking further information.
But suppose, in this case, the baby had a prominent birthmark that his parents found endearing and it inspired his name. In that case, "adherent of Mars" would not have been the etymology of his iteration of the name, rather the English word "mark" would have been (considering his parents' intentions). Casual acquaintances would probably never know the difference.
Before someone gets upset about its teasing prospects, descriptive names were quite common in earlier cultures. Biblical ESAU springs to mind.
JoHannah Jubilee, BenJudah Gabriel, Aaron Josiah, Jordan Uriah,
Maranatha Nissiah, (Anastasia Nike, 1992-1992), Jeshua David,
Shiloh Joshana, Elijah Daniel, Hezekiah Nathaniel, Zephaniah Joseph
1
Replies
Your example is purely hypothetical. I am sure that such names exist. However, it's a bit of a complicated question as to what the complete etymology is when parents choose a name which they know is already commonly used as a given name even when the choice is influenced by other associations they have with the word.
Take Porsche. There have been many girls given this name in the United States the last 25 years. The spelling is obviously taken from the trade name of the automobile. This in turn is from a German surname which is originally derived from the given name Boris.
However, it's doubtful if most parents who've named daughters Porsche would have done that if they had not already known that Portia, pronounced the same way but with a completely different Latin origin, was already used as a girl's name in English. Parents who have no interest in linguistics identify words as being the same solely by their sound, and so may have actually conceived of Porsche and Portia as just being two different spellings for the same name. So when Porsche is used as a girl's name, the total story of its etymology may not be the car, even if parents tell you they were consciously thinking of the brand name as an inspiration for their choice. The prior existence of Portia was also influencing them, and so it's still part of the complete history of the name.
Of course the existence of Porsche and Mercedes itself is what partly inspired other parents to turn Lexus and Camry into names for girls -- they themselves being seen as both short forms of Alexis and Camryn in addition to being automobile brand names.
The full history of a name is often very complex that way. One sentence etymologies often really can't explain the full history of a name -- you need a whole essay sometimes to fully understand this. :)
Take Porsche. There have been many girls given this name in the United States the last 25 years. The spelling is obviously taken from the trade name of the automobile. This in turn is from a German surname which is originally derived from the given name Boris.
However, it's doubtful if most parents who've named daughters Porsche would have done that if they had not already known that Portia, pronounced the same way but with a completely different Latin origin, was already used as a girl's name in English. Parents who have no interest in linguistics identify words as being the same solely by their sound, and so may have actually conceived of Porsche and Portia as just being two different spellings for the same name. So when Porsche is used as a girl's name, the total story of its etymology may not be the car, even if parents tell you they were consciously thinking of the brand name as an inspiration for their choice. The prior existence of Portia was also influencing them, and so it's still part of the complete history of the name.
Of course the existence of Porsche and Mercedes itself is what partly inspired other parents to turn Lexus and Camry into names for girls -- they themselves being seen as both short forms of Alexis and Camryn in addition to being automobile brand names.
The full history of a name is often very complex that way. One sentence etymologies often really can't explain the full history of a name -- you need a whole essay sometimes to fully understand this. :)
2
So, even though an unconsidered BLAZE traditionally derives from BLAISE, no one can intentionally conscript "blaze" from their dictionary?
Maybe its definition should espouse more than one meaning:
*Fire names usually allude to an incendiary and/or a luminary.
**The Trail Blazers are also a pro basketball team, nicknamed the Blazers. Their mascot is BLAZE [the Trail Cat]. That etymology would follow my third option above.
Maybe its definition should espouse more than one meaning:
- Traditionally, a modern variant of BLAISE
- (Modern English) a brilliant flame*
- (Modern English < German) to blaze a trail** (i.e. a forerunner, an innovator, a first-born?).
*Fire names usually allude to an incendiary and/or a luminary.
**The Trail Blazers are also a pro basketball team, nicknamed the Blazers. Their mascot is BLAZE [the Trail Cat]. That etymology would follow my third option above.
This message was edited 10/24/2014, 5:12 PM
1
The meanings you are putting forth are really stretching etymology. Coming up with your own definition is fine (although many people would debate that) but until it has a long term use with a different meaning, its not really noteworthy etymologically speaking. For example, there are a myriad of meanings for Blaze so how do you know that every single person using it is referring to fire or light. They could be referring to any one of these definitions:
noun
1.a very large or fiercely burning fire.
2.used in various expressions of anger, bewilderment, or surprise as a euphemism for “hell”
verb
1.burn fiercely or brightly.
2.(of a gun or a person firing a gun) fire repeatedly or indiscriminately.
3.achieve something in an impressive manner.
blaze2/blāz/
noun
1.a white spot or stripe on the face of a mammal or bird.
2.a mark made on a tree by cutting the bark so as to mark a route.
verb
1.set an example by being the first to do something; pioneer.
2.mark out a path or route.
blaze3/blāz/
verb
(of a newspaper) present or proclaim (news) in a prominent, typically sensational, manner.
In addition, saying Blaze means "to blaze a trail" is completely off target. If you were to add a meaning for Blaze in a modern sense it would be strictly dictionary definition, not an elaborated phrase. Thats why you see actual phrase names like Jesus-Is-Christ and Bread-of-Life, and Tallulah-Does-the-Hula, because you can't know that a particular person wants Jesus to mean Jesus is Christ, or Bread means bread of life, or Tallulah actually means Tallulah does the hula.
You can't simply add whatever etymology YOU like. This is a study, sort of like science. It evolves and progresses, but not without facts to back it up.
noun
1.a very large or fiercely burning fire.
2.used in various expressions of anger, bewilderment, or surprise as a euphemism for “hell”
verb
1.burn fiercely or brightly.
2.(of a gun or a person firing a gun) fire repeatedly or indiscriminately.
3.achieve something in an impressive manner.
blaze2/blāz/
noun
1.a white spot or stripe on the face of a mammal or bird.
2.a mark made on a tree by cutting the bark so as to mark a route.
verb
1.set an example by being the first to do something; pioneer.
2.mark out a path or route.
blaze3/blāz/
verb
(of a newspaper) present or proclaim (news) in a prominent, typically sensational, manner.
In addition, saying Blaze means "to blaze a trail" is completely off target. If you were to add a meaning for Blaze in a modern sense it would be strictly dictionary definition, not an elaborated phrase. Thats why you see actual phrase names like Jesus-Is-Christ and Bread-of-Life, and Tallulah-Does-the-Hula, because you can't know that a particular person wants Jesus to mean Jesus is Christ, or Bread means bread of life, or Tallulah actually means Tallulah does the hula.
You can't simply add whatever etymology YOU like. This is a study, sort of like science. It evolves and progresses, but not without facts to back it up.
This message was edited 10/24/2014, 11:15 PM
2
You are making my point for me. Even though the variant of BLAISE is its traditional etymology, you can't rule out that one (or more) of the others wasn't the intention of the parents. BLAISE [stammerer] is almost certainly its origin when it is chosen euphonically, but you must not impose that interpretation, if his parents clearly were naming him [fiery], [forerunner], etc.
Does placing "a trail" in parentheses make you more comfortable? Blaze (a trail).
That iteration of "blaze" almost always implies "a trail," whether literally or figuratively.
This message was edited 10/25/2014, 12:30 AM
1
"You are making my point for me. Even though the variant of BLAISE is its traditional etymology, you can't rule out that one (or more) of the others wasn't the intention of the parents. [...] but you must not impose that interpretation, if his parents clearly were naming him [fiery], [forerunner], etc."
No. Just no. Just like you said, you can't impose interpretation, you can only go by clearly defined defintions of names based on the present study of etymology. Also, how do you know the parents were "clearly" naming him with a seperate meaning unless they explicitly mention it? That brings up the ideology that then any meaning is acceptable. For example, if I name my kid Blaze and want it to mean "God of the Phoenix in a fiery sky" then I can, and it should be included as a well-accepted meaning of the word as a name? No. Etymology doesn't work that way. Behindthename.com is not like the other baby name sites in that regard. I feel as though you are really pushing this issue because you did something similar with the names of your kids, and somehow you want to legitimize your meanings.
"That iteration of 'blaze' almost always implies 'a trail,' whether literally or figuratively."
Again, no. No, it doesn't.
No. Just no. Just like you said, you can't impose interpretation, you can only go by clearly defined defintions of names based on the present study of etymology. Also, how do you know the parents were "clearly" naming him with a seperate meaning unless they explicitly mention it? That brings up the ideology that then any meaning is acceptable. For example, if I name my kid Blaze and want it to mean "God of the Phoenix in a fiery sky" then I can, and it should be included as a well-accepted meaning of the word as a name? No. Etymology doesn't work that way. Behindthename.com is not like the other baby name sites in that regard. I feel as though you are really pushing this issue because you did something similar with the names of your kids, and somehow you want to legitimize your meanings.
"That iteration of 'blaze' almost always implies 'a trail,' whether literally or figuratively."
Again, no. No, it doesn't.
2
That's just it. We don't know. Their basis, if linguistically legitimate, trumps traditional interpretation.
If a mom says, "I named him Blaze because of his fiery orange hair," you may not impose, "No. Just no. His name means 'stammerer!' No one is going to change its meaning on my watch...!"
She has declared her intended meaning, and it is a legitimate one.
If she says, "...because the name sounds cool" or "He's named for another person," that's when you break out, "Did you know that Blaze is a variant of Blaise, which means 'stammerer'?"
1
It's different to say you named your kid Blaze because of xyz. It's another thing to say that it's the meaning of the name. I can name my kid Blue and say I named him that because he has blue eyes. I cannot, however, say it means blue eyes. It simply means blue, no matter what personal spin I want to put on it.
I, personally, don't feel that any meaning for a name that a person creates is legitimate. I would imagine most users of the Facts Board would agree.
I, personally, don't feel that any meaning for a name that a person creates is legitimate. I would imagine most users of the Facts Board would agree.
2
But "fiery" is a legitimate alternate etymology for Blaze, even if it isn't the traditional one.
(Concentrate on the adjective. No one is advocating the inclusion of "eyes" in the meaning. That argument is detracting.)
Blue can mean "melancholy." Blue can mean the color. It is clear from your example that you mean the latter. Can anyone else demand that you accept the former?
That is true enough where the rules of grammar are expected to be enforced, but that is not the case in a euphonic naming system.
Euphonic naming embraces, at least, three types of names:
- Classical names
- this is where conventional onomastics shines
- Modern language names; lexonyms? [Clarion, Glory, Jubilee, Reveille, Valor, Victory, etc.]
- Made-up names (including portmanteaux); neonyms?
- May be assigned a meaning by the parents (onomastic neologism); tectonyms? [our own Joshana & Nissiah]
- May be close enough to a classical name to warrant such an interpretation; paronyms?
- May be abstract, with no meaning at all; adeionyms? [Dweezil?] |adeio| is Greek for "empty"
This message was edited 10/25/2014, 9:19 PM
1
The only "rules" of euphonic naming practices that I, and likely most of the board, disagree with are the 1st and 3rd point under number 3.
1
History doesn't have a monopoly on coining names, at least, not in a euphonic system. Like it or not, Dweezil is a real person's name. So is Nissiah.
(#2.1 is the topic of this thread. By accepting it, too, have you reconsidered your previous position?)
(#2.1 is the topic of this thread. By accepting it, too, have you reconsidered your previous position?)
This message was edited 10/25/2014, 9:21 PM
1
No, and I'm done discussing your pseudo-etymological theories.
This message was edited 10/25/2014, 11:55 PM
1
LMS,
You are painting a very inconsistent picture of yourself. You went from claiming to agree with most of my model in one post to rejecting it altogether in a single exchange.
You said,
That implied that you accepted items #1, #2, #2.1 and #3.2.
I followed with,
You responded,
Are you still referring to only items #3.1 & 3.3, or did you change your mind about the rest of it, too? (That isn't clear to me.)
You are painting a very inconsistent picture of yourself. You went from claiming to agree with most of my model in one post to rejecting it altogether in a single exchange.
You said,
That implied that you accepted items #1, #2, #2.1 and #3.2.
I followed with,
You responded,
Are you still referring to only items #3.1 & 3.3, or did you change your mind about the rest of it, too? (That isn't clear to me.)
This message was edited 10/26/2014, 5:47 AM
1
Nice point about Portia and Porsche! It clarifies something I've noted a couple of times here in South Africa: girls named Cezanne. I've long suspected that it was Suzanne with a touch of artistic flair ... especially since there is a strong tradition of French given names here (we had Huguenot refugees who got our wine industry going) but not much history of French as a taught language. So people try to clarify pronunciation by using Charl and Jaque instead of Charles and Jaques; conversely, Madeleine is typically pronounced MAH duh LAYN, and I knew a Georges who used the English pronunciation exclusively.
Does anything like this occur in the States?
Does anything like this occur in the States?
1
On the name FACTS board we tend to not worry about teasing prospects (that's rather something to be discussed on the opinions board), but we do tend to get upset about pseudolinguistics, wishful thinking etymologies and unfounded wild-guess theories.
1
In the example above, it wouldn't be pseudolinguistics. It would be the stated basis for one's given name, trumping its default/traditional meaning. Euphonic naming practices have no obligation to conform to rules about spelling, historical meaning or prior existence. We just consult those sources when there is no more specific information to the contrary. Such is a priori vs. a posteriori reasoning.
JOSHANA is a good example of that. We constructed a name from two Hebrew morphemes and Anglicized it.* Some Indian parents arrived at the same name through, most likely, a different linguistic process, thence a different meaning. Neither one is the precedent for the other. That would only be the case if we read about the Indian athlete and thought, "What a cool name. Let's name our baby girl that." Definition lies with the originator.
Some might name their baby BLAZE because of his/her fiery orange hair. If so, BLAISE would have no bearing on their specific use. If ESAU had been born to Anglophones, he would have (using their rationale) been named HARRY (without regard for its Germanic roots).
Also, I understand that known etymology trumps wild guesses, but in the absence of the former, a wild guess may be the best clue that one has. It, at least, puts forth a testable hypothesis when original research is necessary. (SWAG is just a visible disclaimer.)
*Granted, it is not syntactically correct, but that is not a mandate in euphonic naming.
JOSHANA is a good example of that. We constructed a name from two Hebrew morphemes and Anglicized it.* Some Indian parents arrived at the same name through, most likely, a different linguistic process, thence a different meaning. Neither one is the precedent for the other. That would only be the case if we read about the Indian athlete and thought, "What a cool name. Let's name our baby girl that." Definition lies with the originator.
Some might name their baby BLAZE because of his/her fiery orange hair. If so, BLAISE would have no bearing on their specific use. If ESAU had been born to Anglophones, he would have (using their rationale) been named HARRY (without regard for its Germanic roots).
Also, I understand that known etymology trumps wild guesses, but in the absence of the former, a wild guess may be the best clue that one has. It, at least, puts forth a testable hypothesis when original research is necessary. (SWAG is just a visible disclaimer.)
*Granted, it is not syntactically correct, but that is not a mandate in euphonic naming.
This message was edited 10/23/2014, 11:31 PM
1
Harry for Esau doesn't work in terms of using a name based on a characteristic as Harry doesn't mean hairy it just sounds like it. That would be a stretch of the etymology of both names. If you really were naming your child after a characteristic a la Esau, which means "hairy" or "rough" then he would be named Hairy or Rough, not Harry.
1
Euphonic naming practice is not beholden to spelling rules or historical meanings, as we onomatologists are wont to be. Otherwise, variants (and respellings) would hold no meaning at all, due to their "incorrect" spelling.
If JOHN can share the meaning of YEHOWCHANAN,
HARRY can be treated as a modern variant of "hairy,"
as much as it is a traditional variant to HEIMRICH. (Heimrich and "hairy" both have linguistic pedigrees. Harry, ultimately, is a colloquialism or corruption and can go anywhere it fits. It has no base morpheme.)
A mom could declare, "Because he was so hairy, we named him Harry!"
Linguistic rationale clearly stated. It is (in that specific case) a homophonic, hence variant, name for "hairy."
Your etymological objections do not stand in a euphonic naming society. Its traditional etymology remains intact for those who don't impose such a meaning.
Modern languages are just as valid of resources for names as classical ones are.
If JOHN can share the meaning of YEHOWCHANAN,
HARRY can be treated as a modern variant of "hairy,"
as much as it is a traditional variant to HEIMRICH. (Heimrich and "hairy" both have linguistic pedigrees. Harry, ultimately, is a colloquialism or corruption and can go anywhere it fits. It has no base morpheme.)
A mom could declare, "Because he was so hairy, we named him Harry!"
Linguistic rationale clearly stated. It is (in that specific case) a homophonic, hence variant, name for "hairy."
Your etymological objections do not stand in a euphonic naming society. Its traditional etymology remains intact for those who don't impose such a meaning.
Modern languages are just as valid of resources for names as classical ones are.
This message was edited 10/25/2014, 4:20 AM
1
This is ages ago but Harry and hairy are pronounced differently in other English speaking countries
1