New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Yes, but
in reply to a message by তন্ময় ভট
Thank you so much! Yes, I am well acquanited with the IPA and only wish I could use it on this program - it does simplify life.
I've never heard [hæq] either, for Inzie, except from new commentators who mysteriously get it right in their next session, or at least do it differently! So it seems to be what (Anglo) people guess might be the correct sound, until they are told differently.
As for the hyphens, I now see how they're used and why, and I'm delighted to know. I'm also having fun imagining the frustration that names like that must have caused the British civil servants who had to register births etc in colonial days! On the analogy of Salman and Mary, I take it he would be known simply as Inzamam, without the honorific; that must also simplify life.
Strictly off-topic: do you or did you ever follow cricket?
I've never heard [hæq] either, for Inzie, except from new commentators who mysteriously get it right in their next session, or at least do it differently! So it seems to be what (Anglo) people guess might be the correct sound, until they are told differently.
As for the hyphens, I now see how they're used and why, and I'm delighted to know. I'm also having fun imagining the frustration that names like that must have caused the British civil servants who had to register births etc in colonial days! On the analogy of Salman and Mary, I take it he would be known simply as Inzamam, without the honorific; that must also simplify life.
Strictly off-topic: do you or did you ever follow cricket?
1
Replies
Yes.
1
possible misinterpretation
I realized I might have left a misimpression.
On this board, I was trying to give the etymology of -al- and -ur- name, not their current usage. The latter (whether it behaves as a honorific or last name) depends on the culture and how far in the past you are talking about. Just like a MacDonald today may have no conscious affiliation to a clan associated with any Donald, nor do everyone called O'Shea know of the Shea, there is no reason to presuppose that an Albukhari has ever been to Bukhara. Though it is true that Mujibur Rahman was called Mujib, not Mujibur, this depends a lot on how familiar the culture is with the etymology etc. In other words, etymology can only tell you how it originated, not how it is used today.
I realized I might have left a misimpression.
On this board, I was trying to give the etymology of -al- and -ur- name, not their current usage. The latter (whether it behaves as a honorific or last name) depends on the culture and how far in the past you are talking about. Just like a MacDonald today may have no conscious affiliation to a clan associated with any Donald, nor do everyone called O'Shea know of the Shea, there is no reason to presuppose that an Albukhari has ever been to Bukhara. Though it is true that Mujibur Rahman was called Mujib, not Mujibur, this depends a lot on how familiar the culture is with the etymology etc. In other words, etymology can only tell you how it originated, not how it is used today.
1
So Mujibur would be Mujib-ur-Rahman in a different writing system! Most interesting - I would have assumed that the -ur was just any old syllable, as in Jodhpur (which presumably is different).
And you're so right about people losing sight of the original meaning of names like, oh dear, McKenzie for a girl, or Emerson.
All the best
And you're so right about people losing sight of the original meaning of names like, oh dear, McKenzie for a girl, or Emerson.
All the best
1
Jodha (fighter) + pur (settlement)
1