New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Names with a meaning anotnimous with "chaste"?
in reply to a message by Phoebe
not actually, I am searching for a name that is antonimous to chaste when it comes to meaning, an antithesis to Ines... So far "Ratipriya" is a good option
1
Replies
Etymology: ram is a root that means to stop, to rest, to be glad, to have intercourse and is cognate with words related to Greek ἐρᾰτός (eratos if you don't see the Greek) + suffix = rati pleasure, passion, sexual union. It is still used as a word in languages of North India as a formal word for sexual intercourse in many North Indian languages. It is also, mythologically, the name of a wife of the God of love, kAma (another word of Indoeuropean origin, meaning love or desire), the other wife being prIti, pleasure, from the root prI described next.
prI is a root meaning to please, and is etymologically related to English friend + suffix = priYa fond of, beloved, lover. The feminine of this word is priYA.
ratipriYA follows one of the four standard word-compounding principles and means fond of sexual union. It has also been used to mean pleasant during coition. (The masculine ratipriYa would mean lover of rati, i.e. kAma). It has been used as a name in the mythological context at least since the time of the purANas, most of which reached their present form shortly after 1000AD. It is also the name of a particular Karnatic rAga, a south Indian melodic mode.
It is still used as a name, typically in South India, where the languages spoken are not of the Indoeuropean family (so names are unlikely to be analyzed into constituents), but where the mythological and religious dominance of Sanskrit has led to a large influence on onomastics. Not sure, but the Google+ profile https://plus.google.com/112197455878860864766/about does seem to belong to someone with this name.
prI is a root meaning to please, and is etymologically related to English friend + suffix = priYa fond of, beloved, lover. The feminine of this word is priYA.
ratipriYA follows one of the four standard word-compounding principles and means fond of sexual union. It has also been used to mean pleasant during coition. (The masculine ratipriYa would mean lover of rati, i.e. kAma). It has been used as a name in the mythological context at least since the time of the purANas, most of which reached their present form shortly after 1000AD. It is also the name of a particular Karnatic rAga, a south Indian melodic mode.
It is still used as a name, typically in South India, where the languages spoken are not of the Indoeuropean family (so names are unlikely to be analyzed into constituents), but where the mythological and religious dominance of Sanskrit has led to a large influence on onomastics. Not sure, but the Google+ profile https://plus.google.com/112197455878860864766/about does seem to belong to someone with this name.
1
In latin script... how can ratipriYA be a different name than ratipriYa?
1
Sorry, they are not different in the Latin script, obviously. Indian scripts, however, are phonetic and the Harvard-Kyoto scheme uses capitals to distinguish various sounds. In the case, the difference is that the feminine (which is what you want) ends in the long a sound as in English car. The male one ends in a short -a sound, which depending on the language can vary between the initial sound of English about, the sound in English cot, or a short version of the sound in English joke.
1
The Latin script is phonetic when used in Spanish... I mean, each letter usually matches a corresponding sound and just one sound.
1
Yes, sorry, should have been more precise. The same script is indeed different when used to express different languages. It would have been pretty phonetic for English too except for the Norman conquest and the great vowel shift :-) And, because of the colonial past and cultural dominance of the English language, most Indian names (in India) written in the Latin script is aiming at the English (nowadays, American) speaker. Indian names from other places (e.g., West Indies, South Africa, Fiji, etc.) sometimes target speakers with different accents.
In any case, the phonemic inventory is much larger in a typical Indian language than it is in either the Romance or the Germanic languages. As a result, when writing the names in the Latin script, important differences get lost. Moreover, since the north and south of India speak languages with very different phonemic inventories, when approximations are inevitable, they tend to go for different transliterations to emphasize the phonetic features important to their ears. And, so, you will see the same name spelt in a variety of different ways: Gita vs Geetha, Vrinda versus Brintha, etc. In each case, the difference between the native pronunciations is much smaller than would be suggested by the transliterations. In some cases, however, the differences are because the pronunciations have indeed diverged in the different languages: Robindro vs Ravindra vs Rabinder, Smruti vs Smriti, etc. And, in some cases, there are purely conventional transliterations in some parts giving us forms like Rabindra.
I tend to use a mixed upper/lower case transliteration that recalls the spelling in one of the North Indian scripts (which are more uniform and most Indian names one would familiar in the west do have a North Indian transcription), which in most cases would let people deduce its likely pronunciation in most Indian languages (with a little study, of course). I know the situation is complicated: but India is easily as diverse as Europe, and you find the same tradition in Europe. What is orthographically Angel is differently pronounced in English and Spanish, and Charles is not the same in English and France. The difference is that here everyone uses the same script (with small variations), whereas in India the scripts (and the languages) diverged rapidly since about 7th to 9th century, and none of those scripts is, I believe, familiar to most on this board.
In any case, the phonemic inventory is much larger in a typical Indian language than it is in either the Romance or the Germanic languages. As a result, when writing the names in the Latin script, important differences get lost. Moreover, since the north and south of India speak languages with very different phonemic inventories, when approximations are inevitable, they tend to go for different transliterations to emphasize the phonetic features important to their ears. And, so, you will see the same name spelt in a variety of different ways: Gita vs Geetha, Vrinda versus Brintha, etc. In each case, the difference between the native pronunciations is much smaller than would be suggested by the transliterations. In some cases, however, the differences are because the pronunciations have indeed diverged in the different languages: Robindro vs Ravindra vs Rabinder, Smruti vs Smriti, etc. And, in some cases, there are purely conventional transliterations in some parts giving us forms like Rabindra.
I tend to use a mixed upper/lower case transliteration that recalls the spelling in one of the North Indian scripts (which are more uniform and most Indian names one would familiar in the west do have a North Indian transcription), which in most cases would let people deduce its likely pronunciation in most Indian languages (with a little study, of course). I know the situation is complicated: but India is easily as diverse as Europe, and you find the same tradition in Europe. What is orthographically Angel is differently pronounced in English and Spanish, and Charles is not the same in English and France. The difference is that here everyone uses the same script (with small variations), whereas in India the scripts (and the languages) diverged rapidly since about 7th to 9th century, and none of those scripts is, I believe, familiar to most on this board.
1
Yes... For instance I dont know how to refer to you because when I read "author" I dont see any script whatsoever, just a bunch of rectangles (18 rectangles) that appear when non-latin characters aren't recognized by a computer... I appreciat sanskrit and India a lot... Would you be able to make a translation based on a Castilian-Spanish-speaker's perspective?
1