New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Homophonic Neonyms...
in reply to a message by Sabertooth
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
Replies
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