triskellian | Names again

You're viewing

triskellian's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

I'm fascinated by names, as you probably know. So I was pleased to see that Slashdot has an article about names, which, amongst other things, links to this page, which lets you see how the popularity of your name has changed over time. Mine, unsurprisingly, is in the top ten for every set of data I looked at.

There are some odd and some surprising names in the most popular list for 2001, including, for example, Destiny, at 22nd most popular name for a girl, and Isaiah at number 45 for boys.

Tell me about the rise and fall of your name...

Current Mood: tired

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

triskellian

I like some alternative spellings, which I see as different from nonstandard, although not in a way I can define ;-) The 's' version of my name, as used in most of Europe, for example, or <thinks> Lucie, or Sara (pronounced as Sarah) - much nicer without the 'h'. Do you object to those? I hate '-ee' names, too, though.

From:

onebyone.livejournal.com

although not in a way I can define ;-)

A foreign spelling such as Elisabet is only non-standard because of an accident of geography, rather than having been made up on the spot.

There's a similarity with spelling of words other than names - for different people some alternative spellings aren't irritating (erm... chilli vs. chili, perhaps) and others are (erm... colour vs. color, or accommodation vs. anything else).

Presumably then the real definition is that an "alternative" spelling is one which doesn't annoy you, and a "non-standard" spelling is one which does.

From:

triskellian

I *don't* like the spelling 'Elisabet' - the one I like is 'Elisabeth', even when used by sensible English-speaking folk.

With general words, there are only rarely equally correct alternative spellings. The only one I can think of off-hand is focused/focussed. Although there are people who disagree with me on words ending in -ise/-ize ;-) Most of the others, like the ones you mention (and including -ise/-ize IMO), are either plain wrong, or effectively a different language, albeit one with a great deal in common with English-English.

Presumably then the real definition is that an "alternative" spelling is one which doesn't annoy you, and a "non-standard" spelling is one which does.
;-) Which is why I originally said whatever it was about 'not in a way I can define'. But I don't think that is it, actually. I think I use 'alternative' and 'non-standard' to mean exactly the same thing. I just like some alternative/non-standard versions of names, and not others, and I wouldn't use either word to refer to things that aren't proper nouns - then I'd just use 'wrong' ;-)

From:

triskellian

Whoops. Just done a Halsby ;-)

OK. What I meant originally, and forgot about just now, is that, 'alternative' means 'different but equally valid/usual', whereas 'non-standard' means 'different and less usual', but not necessarily 'more wrong'.

So I'd say that, in this country, 'Steven' is an alternative, whereas 'Elisabeth' is non-standard.

From:

onebyone.livejournal.com

Trouble is that when you say that a particular spelling is "just plain wrong", you have to deal with the problem that if it is used enough, it will become right. And that the reasons for what is right and wrong are very arbitrary. Rather like quoting scripture, you either choose to agree with the OED in all things, or else you have no authoritative reference.

"Chilli" is an interesting case in that we, the English, have "done a harbor" on it by arbitrarily changing the spelling mid-Atlantic. So although "chili" in theory is just plain wrong in the UK, that's clearly nonsense. We should rebel against the greybearded fools in their ivory towers who determine these things, and use it anyway. Having refuted their authority, we are then free to -ise or -ize as we please.

From:

triskellian

I have difficulties on this subject. By inclination, I'm very happy for language and words to move around however they feel like it, and I think evolution of spellings, meanings etc is a good and interesting thing.

However, I do quite a lot of proof-reading, so I need at least an idea of what is right and what is wrong...

I don't know about 'chili' (which, incidentally, I would correct to 'chilli') - did it originate over there, and got changed on its journey over here?

From:

onebyone.livejournal.com

did it originate over there, and got changed on its journey over here

That was my understanding, although now I come to think of it I can't remember why. Etymology is reported as via the Spanish "chile", so the second "l" was added by the British at some stage. Of course all this probably happened before the spelling was standardised (naughty me, using -ised) anyway.