Re: -iyah
in reply to a message by Mar
Sofia, Diego and Juan tend to be names given in a certain ethnic group, i.e. they are not universally used [by all ethnic groups] in the United States (or any other English-speaking country). If any of those names had been a popular name among Caucasian communities, black communities, etc. in the USA, then one could say that those names had transcended from their original ethnic community (i.e. have become universally used) and therefore deserve to be listed as a name that is English or English (Modern). But as it is, Sofia, Diego and Juan are largely confined to the latino/hispanic community - and a large percentage of the people in these communities are immigrants from Middle America and South America. Therefore, to me, it makes sense that these names are not listed as English or English (Modern), because they do not reflect American society as a whole - they only reflect the latino/hispanic community. Just compare originally non-English names like Alexander and Marcus, those are names that are universally used: you'll find it on Caucasian people, black people, Asian people, etc. in the USA and so those are universally used and reflective of American society as a whole (and thus deserve to be given English as usage in the BtN database). If you see what I mean (I'm not sure whether I explained this well). :)
As such, I personally believe that for Mike C., mere popularity or a certain famous bearer alone is not enough (or not the sole criterion) for a name to be given a certain usage. It depends on how mainstream and universally used a name has become in a particular country (i.e. "ingeburgerd", as we would say in Dutch). Prior to the rise of fame of the singer Aaliyah, I am sure that the name was exclusively Arabic in usage and hardly ever used in the USA (if it was, then it was probably confined to Arabic communities in the USA). But then the singer Aaliyah became famous, due to which the name got a lot of exposure and thus inspired a lot of prospective parents (of various ethnic groups). Aaliyah's fame broke the [ethnic] barriers for the name, making it break out of the Arabic communities in which it was solely used before: the name became mainstream. At this point, thanks to the singer, the name must be used among all ethnic groups - not just the Arab and black communities - so the name can be considered as universally used and thus reflective of American society. Therefore it deserves to be given English (Modern) as a usage in the database (and it's modern in the USA, because its mainstream use only started there in the last decade).
Well, if you see what I mean. :3
"How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on... when in your heart you begin to understand... there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend... some hurts that go too deep... that have taken hold." ~ Frodo Baggins
As such, I personally believe that for Mike C., mere popularity or a certain famous bearer alone is not enough (or not the sole criterion) for a name to be given a certain usage. It depends on how mainstream and universally used a name has become in a particular country (i.e. "ingeburgerd", as we would say in Dutch). Prior to the rise of fame of the singer Aaliyah, I am sure that the name was exclusively Arabic in usage and hardly ever used in the USA (if it was, then it was probably confined to Arabic communities in the USA). But then the singer Aaliyah became famous, due to which the name got a lot of exposure and thus inspired a lot of prospective parents (of various ethnic groups). Aaliyah's fame broke the [ethnic] barriers for the name, making it break out of the Arabic communities in which it was solely used before: the name became mainstream. At this point, thanks to the singer, the name must be used among all ethnic groups - not just the Arab and black communities - so the name can be considered as universally used and thus reflective of American society. Therefore it deserves to be given English (Modern) as a usage in the database (and it's modern in the USA, because its mainstream use only started there in the last decade).
Well, if you see what I mean. :3
"How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on... when in your heart you begin to understand... there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend... some hurts that go too deep... that have taken hold." ~ Frodo Baggins
This message was edited 1/21/2013, 12:51 PM
Replies
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'.
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'.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.