New Post
Search
Help[Facts] Re: The "New" BTN
in reply to a message by V
You could have worded your opinion in a more respectful way, given the effort that is put into this website and the fact that you have access to this website for free.
Also, it is an undeniable fact that some historically male names have become unisex or have pretty much drifted to the female side entirely. Stubbornly denying these names' evolution to unisex or nearly entirely feminine would be like discarding the thousands if not millions of female bearers, pretending that they don't exist at all. Well, these females are real and alive, and so the usage of these originally male names on females is real, making these names no longer exclusively male names. Get with the times and deal with it.
Lastly, when it comes to names, there are no misspellings - only main spellings (or original spellings) and variant spellings. It doesn't work like words in a dictionary, which have a set spelling for all times, with all deviant spellings being a misspelling. With names, there is no such thing as one truly correct spelling vs. misspellings. Madison and Madisen, for example, are perfectly legitimate. The latter spelling may not be appealing to you personally - it doesn't appeal to me, either - but it would be considered a variant spelling, not a misspelling.
"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
Also, it is an undeniable fact that some historically male names have become unisex or have pretty much drifted to the female side entirely. Stubbornly denying these names' evolution to unisex or nearly entirely feminine would be like discarding the thousands if not millions of female bearers, pretending that they don't exist at all. Well, these females are real and alive, and so the usage of these originally male names on females is real, making these names no longer exclusively male names. Get with the times and deal with it.
Lastly, when it comes to names, there are no misspellings - only main spellings (or original spellings) and variant spellings. It doesn't work like words in a dictionary, which have a set spelling for all times, with all deviant spellings being a misspelling. With names, there is no such thing as one truly correct spelling vs. misspellings. Madison and Madisen, for example, are perfectly legitimate. The latter spelling may not be appealing to you personally - it doesn't appeal to me, either - but it would be considered a variant spelling, not a misspelling.
"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
1
Replies
... actually orthography of lexical units other than proper names is labile as well ...
What I mean is that in both cases, prescriptive "grammar" is artificial and can only manage to define a formal language (and script and orthography) that soon falls out of practical use. Not that it isn't done: Bengalis in India and many cultures in Europe (including, for example, the French) tried something like that---and have/had standardized spellings both for names and for proper words in their respective languages. That did not stop the change in language: language (including names in the case of Bengali, at least) merrily evolved to become and remain incorrect, and in many cases now is hopping from one incorrect form to another :-)
Furthermore, a prescriptive stance is inherently problematic since the linguistic faculty in humans is probably a separate faculty than that which reasons; language evolves due to its own internal and external processes, and strict logical construction gets violated very fast. As a result, taking a prescription always involves making arbitrary choices, and needs to come more from the realm of a committee of scholarly *personae* whose fiat would have standing in the community, and not be subject to the debate and uncertainty of scholarly *thought*.
With that experience most of us take a descriptive stance where, at least, the standard of evaluation is clear even when not attainable. And this website does state it. But, it is not the obvious choice, in fact, to the contrary, it is a pretty difficult concept that there is no "correct" beyond "conventional" in this realm. At least for people trained in some traditions.
What I mean is that in both cases, prescriptive "grammar" is artificial and can only manage to define a formal language (and script and orthography) that soon falls out of practical use. Not that it isn't done: Bengalis in India and many cultures in Europe (including, for example, the French) tried something like that---and have/had standardized spellings both for names and for proper words in their respective languages. That did not stop the change in language: language (including names in the case of Bengali, at least) merrily evolved to become and remain incorrect, and in many cases now is hopping from one incorrect form to another :-)
Furthermore, a prescriptive stance is inherently problematic since the linguistic faculty in humans is probably a separate faculty than that which reasons; language evolves due to its own internal and external processes, and strict logical construction gets violated very fast. As a result, taking a prescription always involves making arbitrary choices, and needs to come more from the realm of a committee of scholarly *personae* whose fiat would have standing in the community, and not be subject to the debate and uncertainty of scholarly *thought*.
With that experience most of us take a descriptive stance where, at least, the standard of evaluation is clear even when not attainable. And this website does state it. But, it is not the obvious choice, in fact, to the contrary, it is a pretty difficult concept that there is no "correct" beyond "conventional" in this realm. At least for people trained in some traditions.
1