New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Homophonic Neonyms...
in reply to a message by clevelandkentevans
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.
"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
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.
JoHannah Jubilee, BenJudah Gabriel, Aaron Josiah, Jordan Uriah,
Maranatha Nissiah, (Anastasia Nike, 1992-1992), Jeshua David,
Shiloh Joshana, Elijah Daniel, Hezekiah Nathaniel, Zephaniah Joseph
This message was edited 10/24/2014, 5:12 PM
1
Replies
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