Personal Names: sense, meaning, reference and other co-relations

8/6/2019 Personal Names: sense, meaning, reference and other co-relations

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/personal-names-sense-meaning-reference-and-other-co-relations 1/26

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

School of Philosophy

Faculty of English Studies

Topics in Semantics (6 th

Semester)

Associate Professor Spyronicolas Hoïdas



Personal Names: Sense, Meaning, Reference and other co-relations

A good name is better than precious oil.

Ecclesiastes, 7:11

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Romeo and Juliet, 2.2.45-46

The issue of names and naming has been a central function of humancivilisation, wherever it may lie around the globe, an issue that has extensivelyintrigued religion, philosophy, sociology, psychology and last, but not least,linguistics (with particular focus on semantics). The basic semantic function of all words has been that of naming, as it is well manifested in Genesis 2:20, whereAdam named all plants and animals. A fascinating subject indeed, naming has

aroused an intense debate amongst theoreticians of all disciplines and has beendramatically exploited in the 20th century, with the advent of television andmotion picture (cinema), and the publication of several name dictionaries.

Names are considered very personal: no linguistic impropriety is more likely toirritate people than the misspelling of their name; or the use of another form,

other than their preferred one (e.g. Beth and Bet, when a certain woman prefersbeing called Betsy). But, even though names are very personal and verypowerful, how many actually know what their name means?

This paper will attempt to identify and clarify the multi-facet framework namescreate within language and across cultures, allowing the reader to attempt tocoherently visualise the intense matrix names create within and without

language. It is by no means a fully elaborative account of the affinity nameshave with language and reality, it does however lay the foundation for furtherstudy of this vast domain in language. Meticulous attention has been given thatthe examples provided are both male and female, and that an internationalgamut of names is provided, most of which are placed within Judaeo-Christian




WHAT’S IN A NAME?

Human beings have a name in virtually all cultures, a name that supposedlydistinguishes them from the other members of a community. Initially, childrenor adults were given a single name, a process that worked well for smallcommunities, where each person was known and called on a first-name basis(their only name, in fact). As the human settlements grew, the need for this“distinction” between the members of the settlement was increased, and was

satisfied by the addition of another name, which qualified the individual, thesurname. This became common practice only after the 14th century.

Thus, while previously we just had John and Mary, we now had 10 Johns and 10Marys, only those 10 Johns and 10 Marys had a different surname. Mary Johnson, Mary Winter, John Major, John Thatcher and so forth. However, the

communities people lived in grew more, and not even two names weresufficient to distinguish them from other people. Some added a middle name,others were given a second name; others added an initial, while others werecontent with bearing a name that was no longer unique. In short, this is thestory of names and naming in the human culture.

NAMES AND MEANING

Like most1 linguistic elements, names were originally created by languageusers to serve a particular purpose. The very first name that appears in theBible is the name of Adam. He was given this name by God, because it means“man” in Hebrew. Adam, then, named each and every living being, animal,bird and plant, with an individual name and, when God created Eve, she called

her thus because it means “mother of all living”, in relation and reference toher function, being the carrier of life. So, the first names were symbolic. Jesus’name is also symbolic: it means “saviour”.

In the same vein God selected the names of the first humans, we see parents




Michael means “who is like God?” Emmanuel, used for the promised Messiah,as prophesised by Isaiah, means “God is with us”.

God did not only name Adam and Eve, but also - in certain occasions - changedthe names of certain people in the Old Testament, to show that their lives hada new meaning, a new direction. Abram - whose name meant “exalted father” -was changed to Abraham “the father of a multitude”; Sarai, a “princess”, waschanged to Sarah, another form or a “princess”. When God promises them a

child, in their nineties, Sarah laughs: Isaac means “laughter”. Jacob, afterfighting with an angel, was re-named into Israel “prince with God”. And in theNew Testament, Simon’s name was changed to Peter, which means “rock”,because of his adamant faith in God, while Saul’s name was changed to Paul tohonour his first convert, Sergius Paulus. People also change the names of theirchildren, to give them a better life: Rachel “ewe”, moments before her death inthe labour of the twelfth son of Jacob, names their son Benoni “son of mysorrow”; his father though does not wish him to bear such an ominous name:so, he calls him Benyamin (Benjamin) “son of my right hand”.

Many other names were created in the mythology of other cultures, such asthe Greek and the Roman, as well as the Christian one. Some were created tocapture a particular feature an individual had: Christopher “bearer of Christ”,

Alexander “defender of men”, Eugene “noble”, Agnes “pure”, Agatha “good”,Dorothea and Theodora “gift of God”. Others, in the form of a myth, accountfor the name a particular floral entity or a natural phenomenon has: Daphne “laurel”, Hyacinth “hyacinth”, Dawn or Aurora “daybreak”, Flora “of theflowers”, Marina “of the sea”. And many other names have a quite transparentmeaning, such as Grace, Hope, Joy, Patience and Prudence (why are all these

female names?), Amber, Beryl, Crystal, Jade, Jewel and Ruby (precious andsemi-precious stones), Daisy, Iris, Jasmine, Petunia, Rosemary and Violet(flowers or plants), etc2.

Other cultures have devised names on the basis of other criteria: NativeAmericans for example were said to assign a name to their child on the basis




A CRYPTIC MEANING?

That names have meanings is a given. The etymology of names can be tracedback in time, with the help of specialised dictionaries, so popular in the 20th century. However, a great number of names used in English are not English inorigin: many come from the Bible (either in their original Hebrew form or inan Anglicised version, e.g. Benjamin, Esther, Hannah, Jeremy), others comefrom the Latin language (mythology, literary tradition, etc e.g. Clara, Felix,

Gloria, Terence, Virgil, Virginia), others derive from the Greek language(usually in a Latinised manifestation, e.g. Alexander, Ariadne, Homer,Penelope), while many others come from Celtic languages, the result of Gaelicand Welsh influences on English (Bridget, Kevin, Neil and Sheila from IrishGaelic, Donald, Duncan, Ian and Kenneth from Scottish Gaelic, Gareth, Gladys, Gwyneth and Trevor from Welsh), all now so popular in the English-speaking

world.

Others are pagan Teutonic names, borne by Norman rulers (Henry, Richard,Robert, William), or have their roots in the Norse and Saxon invasions (Alvin,Kirk, Oswald, Winfred) that took place in England a number of times before the10th century. So, it seems, most of these names lack an accessible meaning forthe average speaker of English. All these linguistic influences hinder the de-ciphering of names and the extraction of meaning. Most probably, speakers of English have little or no knowledge of these languages: they, therefore, areunable to recognise the underlying meaning of a number of names, and it is nosurprise that oftentimes they do not know what their own name means!

Most parents select a name for their child, not on the basis of its meaning,

rather on the basis of its frequency of occurrence or its sound and rhythm;others select a name because it became popular through literature, politics,cinema or music [Scarlet was immensely popularised after the heroine of thenovel Gone with the Wind (1936) by Margaret Mitchell; Marilyn also becamehighly popular after actress Marilyn Monroe, while Kylie owes its popularity to




NAMES AND REFERENCE

A distinguishable feature of proper names is their actual use as referringexpressions. Philosophers of language and thought have developed varioustheories to account for the usage and purpose of names, especially in terms of their reference and the ontological and metaphysical concerns namesencompass. Psychologists, on the other hand, have dealt with thepsychological impact names have on their bearers and in what ways their

name shapes (or, sometimes, defines) their personality. Sociologists are moreconcerned with the question “Why are some names selected, against othernames?” Linguists are more concerned with the use of the code (names),instead of the aesthetics of the code (euphony and connotation).

One school of thought, the “causal theory”3 advocates that proper names refer

to individuals and, therefore, have no meaning. Such a theory may very wellbe implemented for people we know or for people we can identify (e.g.Margaret Thatcher, Franklin Roosevelt, Alexander Fleming or Marie Curie).However, this theory is inadequate and cannot account for cases in which theactual referent has not been identified, or its existence is questioned (e.g.Homer or Robin Hood), or for cases in which the name is associated withparticular actions or properties (e.g. Jack the Riper and Edward Blackbeard thepirate), which are best accounted for by the “descriptive theory”4.

Do names have reference? Such a question, although many will hastily answerit affirmatively, is a question that has puzzled philosophers for centuries. And,indeed, the following examples justify an affirmative answer to it, to a lesseror greater extent. When asking a question like this, and precisely because we

expect a single Yes or a single No, it is as if we are asking “Do names alwayshave reference?” It is my belief that, instead of asking that, we should beasking a somehow different question, namely: “On what occasions do nameshave reference?” Such a query cannot be answered with a Yes or No; thereforefurther explanations should be given, so it is safer to employ it as a beacon in




chemical elements’ names, have a particular referent. In cases where there ismore than one referent (such as the case of Alexandre Dumas), furtherclarifications and refinements are provided, to properly distinguish betweenthe referents [in this case, we have Dumas père (1802-1870) and Dumas fils(1824-1895)].

However, an entirely different situation arises when names are used moregenerically. A quasi-referential function, often systematised in many

languages, is the vocative function of names. When someone calls “Derek” or“Olivia” in the street (possibly referring to a specific individual near-by), it islikely that, given the names are fairly common, more than one individual willrespond to the summons. To which extent does the use of a name refer to aspecific individual? Such an instance challenges the dividing line betweenproper names and common nouns on the basis that proper names aresupposedly used only to refer to specific individuals.

Another example is a telephone directory: it provides us with a set of namesand surnames, accompanied by a telephone number and a postal address. It isapparent that each name has a unique referent. A particular name may beassociated with more than one telephone numbers, may have more than oneresidences (and, therefore, postal addresses), or even more than one referents

may bear the same name. Yet, the fact remains that each name is supposed torepresent a unique individual. The question arises, and it is quite common andoften presents us with a practical difficulty: “Whom does a particular namerefer to?”

Quite frequently, we try to find an individual’s telephone number in thedirectory, and - even though we know both their first and last name - we findthat more than one individual has the same name. Supposedly, we look for thetelephone number of Terry Winter, who lives in Edinburgh. We open thetelephone directory and we locate five such instances. It is indeed a pickletrying to guess whom does each entry actually refer to. Precisely because weare not aware of which instance of Terry Winter we are looking for (even




They, too, have an extensive encyclopaedic knowledge. They may not know of Isaac Newton, but they do know of Dustin (Hoffman); they may not know of Penelope, but they know of Avril (Lavigne), even though the have never metor, perhaps, seen them in photographs and artistic representations.

Similar circumstances transpired during ancient times: people in ancientGreece and ancient Rome believed in a number of Gods and Goddesses, with 12of them (in equal proportion, regarding their gender) comprising the “basic

set” and innumerable others surrounding them. Although a number of fascinating myths were around, telling of people who met, saw, even coupledwith them, the average Greek or Roman had never actually seen any suchdeity. Yet, even though most of them were illiterate, all of them formulatedthe appropriate connexions in their minds and “visualised” or, better,conceptualised the referent to names such as Aphrodite (Venus), Apollo, Hermes, Athena (Minerva) and Zeus (Jupiter), something we, ourselves, arequite capable of doing, even though we do not believe in them.

Pagan faith is not the only faith related to a multitude of names: a rathersimilar situation exists in Christianity. It is not simply a matter of belief, butalso a matter of similarity in pattern. Christians have Jesus, the Virgin Mary,the 12 Apostles (all of them men, also called Saints) and a large number of

Saints, blessed, ascetics and visionaries. Although some people claim to haveseen an Apostle or a Saint, even the Virgin Mary, the wider public and theaverage Christian has not seen them. Yet, all Christians readily conceptualisethe referents of Saint George, Saint Marc, Saint Peter, Santa Clara, Santa Ireneand so many other Saints, some of which are more local than others. So, onceagain, although we may not be personally acquainted with the referent, weimmediately realise that these names have reference.

NAMES AND GRAMMAR - PLURALITY & REFERENCE

What challenges our prototypical knowledge of names having reference is the




The foundation of this rule lies, like many other prescriptive rules - such as thefamous “never split an infinitive”5 -, in classical Latin grammars. Romans werenot particularly fond of a number of things in their language, such as theplurality of names; therefore, English grammarians “inherited” this rule fromthem. However, for better or worse, it seems that modern usage of English -regardless of a grammatical rule - allows us to circumvent this prescription. Aswe live in a growing society with a multitude of human beings surrounding usand, since some names are - for one reason or the other - favoured by many, it

is not uncommon to find ourselves around five Clarks or six Pamelas (i.e. fivepeople called “Clark” or six people called “Pamela”) and, in another time andlocation, attempting to describe the situation using qualifications like “the tallClark”, “the short Clark”, “the thin Pamela”, “the fat Pamela” - just like we dowith common nouns.

The Romans had a wise motto: necessitas habet non legem (Necessity obeys nolaws). Indeed, when confronted with a necessity, such as the disambiguation inthe concurrent presence of persons bearing the same name, the first thing weattempt to do is to acclimatise ourselves to the situation and, later on, attemptto deal with it. In cases such as this, pragmatic reality always wins overlinguistic reality. However, this is not as far as this circumvention goes:languages (or any other linguistic code, for that matter) exist to serve

communication and communicational needs. These needs shape language in anew way all the time: new lexical items are coined or formed; existing lexicalitems lose old meanings or acquire new ones, while new grammaticalconstructions are devised to serve a new need or, in some cases, intensifymeaning.

Since we are in the domain of grammar, an example from that domain wouldbe prudent: Slang English and Black English use a construction of the type “Idon’t know nothing”, in which two negations exist in the same sentence and yet - despite the prescriptive rule asserting that two negations make anaffirmation (another Latin inheritance) - the meaning that goes through isthat not only the speaker knows nothing but they do not know anything at all




needs of their speakers. And, indeed, need, in combination with extensiveusage, equals acceptance6.

Yet, with or without inflexion and plural forms, names in grammar books lackreference. Unless well-known individuals are used as examples (e.g. WinstonChurchill, Benjamin Franklin, Nicole Kidman or Indira Gandhi), there is no waywe can possibly identify or even imagine who is the Henry or the Miranda agrammatical example cites (e.g. Henry broke the vase, Miranda kicked the

ball). Similarly, we can never be sure whether the Neville Chamberlain or theCoco Chanel used as examples in a grammar book actually refer to the BritishPrime Minister or the French fashion designer, although it is highly unlikelythat they will not. The only “safe” inference we can deduce is Henry’s andMiranda’s gender, which will be dealt with in the subsequent chapter.

NAMES AND GENDER

One of the inferences we can make about the bearer of a particular namerelates to their gender. Any competent speaker of English immediatelyrecognises that, in all probability, individuals named Arnold, Edmund, Richard and William are males and that individuals named Ann, Carol, Susan and Zoë are females. What is it that allows us to predict the gender of the referent of

any given name? Is it the number of syllables? Is it the onset or the coda? Is itthe morphological make-up of names? Or is it pragmatic knowledge andknowledge of how a name is used?

Relations between names and gender in English are rather tentative. Only asmall number of names are morphologically committed to a particular gender,

because of their ending: Angus, Cornelius, Fergus, Linus and Marcus areunlikely to be assigned to females, in the same manner that Aurora, Flora,Helena, Maria and Rebecca would sound awkward for speakers of English if associated with males.

h h h l l h h




as Greek or Italian7. There is nothing male about Kevin or Edgar, in the sameway Gaynor and Hyacinth have nothing female in them. What distinguishes

male from female names, other than the case of partisan endings, is how theyare used by society.

In other words, though most parents would feel that Beatrice and Evangeline are unsuitable names for their son, in the same vein that Gregory and Anthony would be poor choices for their daughter, there is nothing inherently female

about the former or inherently male about the latter, at least morphologicallyspeaking. Precisely because, morphologically speaking, there is nothinginherently male about Ashley, Leslie, Noël, Robin, Shane, Tracy or Vivian andnothing inherently female about Evelyn, Jocelyn, Kelly, Shelley, Shirley orStacey, when parents began assigning them to girls, no grammaticalincongruity occurred in the language. This is also why pet names, such asFrankie and Georgie, are used equally by males and females.

However, grammaticality does not guarantee acceptability. When a namebecomes androgynous or it is assigned commonly to the opposite sex than theoriginal one, there is a tendency to either feminise it, by adding a differentfemale ending, such as in the case of Evelyn (=> Eveline, Evelyne), Jocelyn (=> Joceline), Noël (=>Noëlle), Robin (=>Robyn), Tracy (=>Tracey, Tracie), Vivian

(=>Vivien, Vivyan), or parents stop giving them to boys: currently Ashley, Jocelyn, Kelly, Leslie, Shelly, Shirley, Tracy and Vivian8 are now normally girl’snames, Robin is quite common as a girl’s name, while Shane and Stacey arefinding their way there. But, Meredith and Sidney/Sydney, althoughoccasionally used for girls, are primarily boy’s names.

Regional variation also plays an important role: Lindsey, originally a boy’sname, is now nearly always used for girls, with the exception of Scotland;Morgan, when used outside Wales, is usually female; Shawn/Shaun (Americanised version of Sean) is also a girl’s name in Canada; Merle is stillnormally a girl’s name in the UK, but is more common as a boy’s name in theUS similarly to / on the other hand is now well




such as in the case of Florence and Joyce: formerly male, when their use diedout and was later revived (the former because of Florence Nightingale and the

latter in the 17th and 18th centuries, as a variant of Joy), they became girl’snames. A similar case is Hilary. Yet, another kind of names has become female:names coming from foreign languages with a ‘feminine’ ending, such as Ariel,Nikita, Oprah and Sasha became female names, upon their entrance in theEnglish language.

Recently, the issue was considered from a phonological point of view. Thefindings were quite interesting. A scanned reproduction from Crystal (2004)9 isshown below. It seems that, phonologically, the sexes do not sound the same,with female names generally comprising many syllables and male namesgenerally comprising few syllables, which is also the norm in pet names.Specific partisan sounds are also found in some male and female names.




heteronymy (same spelling; different pronunciation, e.g. wind, lead - as verbsand nouns), polysemy (same pronunciation; related meaning, e.g. spell a word

and cast a spell), homography (same spelling; same or different pronunciation;unrelated meaning, e.g. a pen for animals, a pen for writing, lead as a noun andlead as a verb), synonymy (different spelling and pronunciation; relatedmeaning, e.g. phlegmatic and indifferent , freedom and liberty), hyponymy andhypernymy (the relationship between general and specific terms, e.g. colour is ahypernym of red, blue and green, while scarlet , crimson and vermillion are all

hyponyms of red), and antonymy (the contrastive relationship between lexicalitems, e.g. tall and short , dead and alive, do and undo).

In short, sense is a type of a more objective meaning between words of alanguage, primarily in terms of contrast, similarity and comparison.Regardless of degree of formality, the verbs choose and select describe the sameaction, in the same fashion that the adjectives beautiful and pretty describe thesame state of affairs (regardless of “degree” of attraction). It has been argued10 that proper names are deprived of sense, because they are not directlyparalleled or juxtaposed to other lexical items, in the same way pretty iscontrasted with ugly and compared to beautiful. This lack of sense isquintessential in discerning between proper names and other lexical items.And, indeed, in what way could Jacqueline and Sebastian be compared to

Muriel and Dominic or contrasted with Valerie and Ambrose?

Yet, as we approach names from another perspective, we shall only discoverthat some of those linguistic relationships are equally applicable to the field of names, in a more or less similar way they are to other lexical fields. Polysemyand homography we have to rule out, so as heteronymy and homonymy andpolygraphy. It is my understanding that there are at least four cases thatchallenge this dividing line between proper names and other lexical items.

Marginal cases exist (and a small number of names), in which someproper names are also lexical items, such as the case of Angel or Dawn.The proper name and the lexical item are identical in every respect: so




also on the basis of antonymy, in which case we juxtapose the lexicalitem identical to the proper name with another lexical item, on the basis

of the properties the bearer of the name has (he is evil, ugly, sly etc).Referring to an individual called Dawn as “She is as bright as Dawn”,relates to some property the bearer has (e.g. she is beautiful, she issurrounded by an aura of vitality etc), which is related to a property thephysical phenomenon has.

This intermingling of common nouns and proper names results in aninteresting and dynamic relationship between linguistic and actualreality. However, it is applicable to only a marginalised set of names thatretain the same form as common nouns. In cases like Grace, Hope, Joy and Prudence, if the bearer has some similar qualities, we also formconnexions between the name and the lexical item.

Pet names or short forms of names do allude to some kind of hyponymy-hypernymy relationship. In other words, the full forms Patrick andPatricia can be considered to be the hypernyms of their pet name Pat, inthe same way the short forms Alec and Alex can be considered co-hyponyms of Alexander.

The trouble with these kinds of relationships is that, on the one hand, asingle short form or pet name may be a hyponym of more than onename (e.g. Al may be short for Alan, Albert, Alexander, Alexandra,Alfred, even Alice). On the other hand, because the field of names isespecially innovative, in that just about everyone can create their ownshort form, or use an existing short form for a name which has noconnexion with the short form (e.g. Dick and Richard), it is extremelydifficult for the human processor to conceptualise and account for everysingle occurrence.

Both of these cases, however, are also encountered in other parts of thelanguage so it could be supported that once more that linguistic




linguistic or etymological meaning, yet retain different form, which iseither closely inter-related or completely different.

Examples of that would be Catherine, Karen and Caitlin, Jane, Jean,Joan(ne) and Joanna, and Helen, Helena and El(l)en as opposed to James and Jacob, John and Sean and Alasdair, Alistair and Alexander. In thefirst two instances (Catherine, Jane and Helen) the resemblance issomewhat easily recognisable, while in the last three instances (James,

John and Alexander), it is quite taxing for some to trace a relationshipbetween the names. Yet, in all cases and regardless of localisations (Jeanand Alistair have a Scottish flavour, while Joanne and Joan retain aNorman timbre, in the same way Elen and Elin are particular to Wales,whereas Ellen is more neutral and Caitlin is no longer specific to IrishGaelic), there is some sort of similarity.

As previously mentioned, names are a rather personal matter, both forthe bearer and for the other users of the language. Although in all thosecases - and many others -, especially in the case of Jane and Jean andHelen and Helena, one could draw a synonymy relationship, it is ratherdebatable whether the speakers of the language will accept James asbeing equal to Jacob or Helen as being equal to Helena11. Not only does

onomastic diversity (and all that it entails, in terms of aesthetics and‘feeling’) foster this discrepancy, but unawareness of etymology alsohinders such an equalisation. And really, is Jane felt the same as Jean?

An inverse relationship in the domain of names, laterally resembling thefunction of antonymy, can be drawn upon names that have both a maleand a female form (assuming that the relationship between them iseasily perceivable or, at least, easily identifiable - which does notpreclude morphological discrepancy). In the same vein the word“woman” is the opposite of “man” (assuming that the word “man”refers to a male individual and does not generically refer to a humanbeing regardless of gender) instances such as and




The problem with this connexion between the pairs lies in the verydefinition of antonymy, i.e. the relationship between words that have

some sort of opposite or negative meaning, as well as the way antonymyoperates within language. As the following lines prove, proper namesare not truly antonymous between them.

There are three categorisations of antonyms: complementary antonyms (e.g. dead and alive, present and absent), in which case the negation of

the former immediately signifies the other (If Silvia is NOT dead, she isnecessarily alive13 and if Mauricio is NOT present, he is necessarilyabsent14), gradable antonyms (e.g. tall and short, good and bad), in whichcase negating that Pedro is short does not necessarily mean that he istall, and reversive antonyms (e.g. enter and exit, pack and unpack,lengthen and shorten), that describe reverse actions. In the case of gradable antonyms, these antonyms may be placed on a scale of

comparison (e.g. X is shorter than Y, who is shorter than Z), theimmediate result of that being the absence of absolutism in their use.

Proper names do not seem to fit in either category; subsequently, theycannot be used in the same the way antonyms are typically used: If a boyis NOT called Joseph, he is not necessarily called Thomas, in the same

way that a poet is not the opposite of a poetess and a Queen is not theopposite of a King. The difference between a King and a Queen does notmerely lie on the different referent (in the same way that Marius andMary refer to different bearers or in the same way that the name David may be used to refer to many individuals) they have, nor does it refer toa different institution, rather it linguistically encodes a biological stateof affairs, directly related to the individual who holds the politicalpower in the institutionalised system of regality15. In other words, a Kingand a Queen perform the same function as a poet and a poetess, abrother and a sister, a niece and nephew, an aunt and an uncle, and theonly thing that separates them is the bearer’s gender.




NAMES AND OTHER CO-RELATIONS

Another important framework of relations within the realm of names occursin a number of ways. Let us consider them in a nutshell.

Ethnicity and Religion

Originally, names denoted a particular regionalism. While many names used in

English are of Hebrew derivation and are used by many languages with aChristian background (e.g. Michael, Daniel, Susan and Ann), there are other Jewish names that are much more common among Jews, such as Aaron, Amos,Isaac, Moses and Solomon (all of them male names), while others have onlybeen common amongst English-speaking Protestants (Abigail, Abraham,Deborah, Ezra, Miriam, Noah). Similarly, although Christian nations share a

large number of names, some names are exclusive to Roman Catholics(Benedict, Carmel, Dolores, Ferdinand, Milagros, Ramona, Sylvie, Xavier),others are exclusive to Orthodox (Αθανασία, Γεράσιμος, Νεκταρία, Σωτήρης),while others are common to both dogmas, but uncommon to Protestants(Angelica, Antonia, Raphael, Teresa). Rachel, on the other hand, is commonbetween Roman Catholics and Protestants, but not amongst Orthodox.

Similarly, some names originate in a particular region or country: e.g. ancientGreek names such as Aeschylus, Alexander, Antigone, Euripides, Hermione, Jocasta, Menander, Pericles, Socrates and Sophocles - most of them male, sinceancient Greek tribes were patriarchal16, French names (Bernard, Charlotte,Louise, Vincent), Gaelic names (Aileen, Brian, Megan, Quinn). However, thesenames are also borne by English-speaking individuals: although they retain a

regional flavour (e.g. Jean still retains some Scottish flavour), they are nolonger confined to individuals from that region. Yet, some parents, eventhough they live in an English-speaking country, choose to assign ethnicnames to their children [e.g. Jesminder in the British film Bend it like Beckham (2002) and Toula in the Canadian film My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)].




Κυπρολέοντας, Λάζαρος, Λευκοθέα, Μακάριος, Μάμας, Μέμνων, Μνάσων, Μύρων, Νεόφυτος, Νικοκλής, Ονασαγόρας, Ονήσιλος, Ονησίφορος, Πασικράτης,

Πασίκυπρος, Πνυταγόρας, Πράξανδρος, Πυλαγόρας, Ρηγίνος, Στάσανδρος,Στασάνος, Στασικράτης, Στασίκυπρος, Στασίοικος, Στασίνος, Συνέσιος, Σωζόμενος, Τεύκρος, Τιμόκυπρος, Τριφύλλιος, Τύχων, Φιλάδελφος, Φιλόκυπρος and Χαλκάνωρ are considered to be highly connected with Cyprus, althoughonly names in italics are normally used as proper names nowadays.

Specific features

Some names have become famous because a bearer had a particular feature orproperty, thus incorporating that connexion into our encyclopaedicknowledge. So, names come to symbolise particular attributes. Alexander hasbeen identified with bravery; Cicero with eloquence; Judas with treason;Penelope with fidelity and loyalty; Beatrice with unparalleled beauty andunbound love.

Precisely because such information unconsciously underlies the knowledge wehave of the world (provided we share the same culture and a number of otherassumptions), some properties are inextricably linked with a particular name.In a somehow similar manner we say “He’s not an angel, he’s a daemon” for an

individual named Angel who has some negative traits, we would say that “He’sno Cicero” for an individual called Cicero and lacks eloquence, or “He’s truly aBeatrice” for an individual called Beatrice and is kind and beautiful. In thesecases, we could say that names are somehow contextualised within reality.

Similarly, some names have been associated with particular actions that haverendered them taboo words: Adolph is extremely unlikely to be used as aname, given it was borne by Adolph Hitler; Calvin and Luther would not beusually found among Roman Catholics and Orthodox; Lucifer has daemonicconnotations; Judas is not even allowed to be given as a name in all Christiandogmas, and so is the case with Diocletianus, Lenin, Nero and Stalin - due toh i i l i hi i h h i i i




their language resulted in a rather melodious language: many have supportedthat the ancient Greeks “sang” (in a similar manner the Chinese have a

melodious language).

The euphony of ancient Greek seems to appeal, even today, to many culturesthroughout the world, including the English-speaking world. It is not withoutreason that Cleopatra and, Daphne are favoured by many speakers of English,on the grounds they are euphonious; however, any attempt to describe the

reasons behind this euphony would be arduous. It is like God, or the Matrix:Morpheus, tells Neo in the film (1999): “Unfortunately, no one can be told whatthe Matrix is: you have to see it for your self”.

However, not only ancient Greek names appeal to our ears: Latin names arealso quite euphonious, in the same way that Slavic names Boris, Ivan, Natasha,Nikita, Sasha, Svetlana, Tanya and Vera are considered desirable names.

Oriental and exotic names are also quite popular (Keanu “cool breeze” is notonly popular because of its sounding, but also because it is borne by actorKeanu Reeves).

And, of course, some names have that “thing” that makes them “something”:Christine is sexy; Agamemnon majestic; Stephen is cute, Cassandra is mighty

and so on. However, this is purely a matter of opinion, culture and influences.For example, names such as Αναξαγόρας, Αναξίμανδρος, Αναξιμένης andΠράξανδρος once fostered for their euphony and majesty, are now consideredtoo extravagant.

NAMES AND THE LEXICON

The lexicon is a garner of words of a particular language (or more than onelanguage). It is the well that fills its readers with knowledge and, at the sametime - for a lexicon is never static - is fed by its readers with knowledge, withregard to the creation of new lexical items, the change of meaning of words




proper nouns, in juxtaposition to common nouns, which describe objects,animate and inanimate entities or ideas.

In the case of names, however, the major dispute occurs when a lexicographeris about to select the kinds of words to be included in the dictionary. Shouldpersonal names be included? If yes, what kind of information should beincluded along with it: the gender of its bearers, its etymology, its meaning?All these questions are to be answered prior to the compilation of the

dictionary corpus. It has been argued18

that although names are deprived of sense, they should be included in the dictionary, because they carryinformation with them.

Most dictionaries that deal only with words, not encyclopaedic references,choose to omit personal names. However, since most authoritative dictionariestoday do have some encyclopaedic references, personal names and other

words of the lexicon are intermingled, but we can never be sure of the extentto which they are included as a regular entry or as an encyclopaedic reference.

NAMES AND TRANSLATION

Names across languages challenge our “translation ethics” in a rather intense

way. It is a common fact that Europe is a Christian continent19 - although manyare discontented at the idea, or others are terrified at the large number of Muslims in large countries such as France, Germany and the U.K. And becauseEuropean languages have dominated most of the world (especially ‘big’languages such as English, French, German, Portuguese and Spanish), it is onlynatural that, because of their Christian religion, they share some names.

In English we have John (“God is gracious” in Hebrew), in French Jean, inGerman Johan, in Czech, Danish, Dutch, Polish and Swedish Jan, in SpanishJuan, in Italian Giovanni, in Irish Gaelic Sean, in Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian,

Russian and Ukrainian Ivan/Иван, in Armenian Յովհաննէս and in Greek




Female names, on the other hand, are less varied: Alice in English is Alix inFrench, Ali(s)z in German, Alicia in Spanish, Alys in Welsh and Αλίκη in Greek.

Catherine in English is Karen in Danish and Norwegian, Katrina in Dutch,Κατερίνα in Greek, Caterina in Italian and Katerina in Czech, Catalina inSpanish and Catherine in French.

How is a translator going to cope with those names during the translationprocess? And, furthermore, how is the bi-lingual (or multi-lingual) dictionary

to handle such instances. Is it important to retain the original form of thename, thus blocking access to the connotations it entails or is it important totranslate the original form, thus allowing access to the translatableconnotations?

Most bi-lingual dictionaries avoid translating names; it is, therefore,imperative for foreign language learners to find equivalences between names

on their own (not all names are translatable). On the other hand, names thatretain the same form, yet have phonological differences (cf. Gabriel in Englishand Γαβριήλ in Greek), are quite similar in that no incongruity occurs betweenthem in translation. Yet, as in the case of other names, it seems that forcinema and literature, both their morphological and phonological make-up isan integral part of the language they come from (even though both Gabriel

and Γαβριήλ derive from Hebrew .(”, meaning “man of Godגבריאל

An Englishman named James is highly unlikely that he will be addressed to as Jacques in French or Iacovos in Greek. His name is inextricably linked to hisEnglishness, although it is likely that, phonologically, the original name willinevitably be accommodated into the phonological system of the targetlanguage and, perhaps, become a domestic name (e.g. Jacob and Ιάκωβος).

Yet, names are a rather personal issue. Each person may have a somewhatdifferent idea about the translation of their name (or other names, for thatmatter). Some may prefer to leave their names intact, others may prefer an

d t d i f th i ( i E li h i




more instances occur, often leading to co-existence of translations ortransliterations, or confusion (such as in the case of Greeklish21, where there

are many “schools of thought”22 on how to transliterate any given word).

This is a common strategy employed by translators of cartoons and children’sseries, especially in the case where they are not simply translated but they aredubbed. In some cases, the translator chooses to translate a name, byproviding it with a flavour of authenticity in the target language, usually on

the basis of some characteristic or feature or property the bearer has.

An interesting example is the translation of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’sStone in Ancient Greek by Andrew Wilson. In translating names, he had tocome up with a solution to produce meaningful names that would give theclassical reader an Ancient Greek gist. Dumbledore becomes ∆ιμπλόδωρος [double = διπλό(ς), therefore dumble=διμπλό(ς)], while Quirell becomes

Κίουρος [squirrel = σκίουρος, quirrel = κίουρος); Hagrid becomes Ἁγριώδης (savage-like), because of his appearance, in the same way Voldemort becomesΦολιδόμορτος [the fate or death of the scale of a snake]. Malfoi becomesΜαλακός (soft, wuss), which explains why everyone laughs at his name. AuntMarge becomes Μαργή (the mad woman), while professor McGonagall becomes Μαγονωγαλέα (witch-sweetie and cat). Ron becomes Ῥόων (a

pomegranate orchard) and Harry Potter becomes Ἅρειος Ποτήρ, that not onlysurprisingly sounds like Harry Potter but also has the meaning of ἄρειος (belonging to Ares, the god of war, an appropriate epithet for a young warrior)and ποτήρ (a cup or a goblet, the cup of wisdom young Harry must quicklylearn to drink).

Committee for the Standardisation of Geographical Names procured the list of proposals, it caused ascandal not only because it abandoned earlier practices but also because it was based on false




Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra, June 2005 22

APPENDIX I. MOST POPULAR NAMES IN AUSTRALIA - BOYS

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

John John John Robert James John David Michael Michael Michael Jacob

William William William James Robert James Michael David Jason Christopher Michael

James James James John John Robert John John Christopher Joshua Matthew

George Robert Robert William William William James James David Matthew Joshua

Charles Joseph Joseph Richard Richard Michael Robert Robert James David Christopher

Joseph Charles Charles Charles Charles David Mark Christopher Matthew Daniel NicholasFrank George George Donald David Richard William William John Andrew Andrew

Henry Edward Edward George Thomas Thomas Richard Mark Joshua Joseph Joseph

Robert Frank Thomas Joseph Donald Charles Thomas Richard Robert Justin Tyler

Harry Henry Frank Edward Ronald Gary Steven Brian Daniel James Daniel

MOST POPULAR NAMES IN AUSTRALIA - GIRLS

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Mary Mary Mary Mary Mary Linda Mary Jennifer Jennifer Jessica Emily

Helen Helen Dorothy Betty Barbara Mary Susan Lisa Jessica Ashley Hannah

Anna Margaret Helen Dorothy Patricia Patricia Karen Kimberly Amanda Brittany Madison

Margaret Dorothy Margaret Helen Carol Barbara Maria Michelle Melissa Amanda Ashley

Ruth Ruth Ruth Barbara Judith Susan Lisa Angela Sarah Stephanie SarahElizabeth Anna Virginia Margaret Betty Maria Linda Maria Nicole Jennifer Alexis

Marie Mildred Elizabeth Maria Nancy Sandra Donna Amy Heather Samantha Samantha

Rose Elizabeth Anna Patricia Maria Nancy Patricia Melissa Amy Sarah Jessica

Florence Alice Mildred Doris Margaret Deborah Debra Mary Michelle Megan Taylor

Bertha Ethel Betty Ruth Linda Kathleen Deborah Tracy Elizabeth Lauren Elizabeth

Data taken from http://www.geocities.com/edgarbook/names/popular.html.




Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra, June 2005 23

APPENDIX II. MOST POPULAR NAMES IN THE UNITED STATES - BOYS

1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

John John Robert Robert James James Michael Michael Michael Michael Jacob

William William John James Robert Michael David Christopher Christopher Christopher Michael

James James James John John Robert John Jason Matthew Matthew Joshua

George Robert William William William John James David Joshua Joshua Matthew

Charles Joseph Charles Richard Richard David Robert James David Jacob Andrew

Robert George George Charles David William Mark John James Nicholas ChristopherJoseph Charles Joseph Donald Charles Richard William Robert Daniel Andrew Joseph

Frank Edward Richard George Thomas Thomas Richard Brian Robert Daniel Nicholas

Edward Frank Edward Thomas Michael Mark Thomas William John Tyler Daniel

Thomas Thomas Donald Joseph Ronald Charles Jeffrey Matthew Joseph Joseph William

MOST POPULAR NAMES IN THE UNITED STATES - GIRLS

1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Mary Mary Mary Mary Mary Mary Lisa Jennifer Jessica Jessica Emily

Helen Helen Dorothy Betty Linda Linda Mary Amy Jennifer Ashley Madison

Margaret Dorothy Helen Barbara Barbara Patricia Susan Melissa Amanda Emily Hannah

Anna Margaret Betty Shirley Patricia Susan Karen Michelle Ashley Samantha Emma

Ruth Ruth Margaret Patricia Carol Deborah Kimberly Kimberly Sarah Sarah Ashley

Elizabeth Mildred Ruth Dorothy Sandra Barbara Patricia Lisa Stephanie Amanda AlexisDorothy Anna Virginia Joan Nancy Debra Linda Angela Melissa Brittany Samantha

Marie Elizabeth Doris Margaret Sharon Karen Donna Heather Nicole Elizabeth Sarah

Florence Frances Mildred Nancy Judith Nancy Michelle Stephanie Elizabeth Taylor Abigail

Mildred Virginia Frances Helen Susan Donna Cynthia Nicole Heather Megan Olivia

Data taken from http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/.





APPENDIX IV. THE MATRIX PROPER NAMES CREATE WITHIN LANGUAGE AND WITH THE WORLD

Documents

Personal Names: sense, meaning, reference and other co-relations