View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

[Facts] Yes. nt
vote up1vote down

Replies

possible misinterpretationI realized I might have left a misimpression.On this board, I was trying to give the etymology of -al- and -ur- name, not their current usage. The latter (whether it behaves as a honorific or last name) depends on the culture and how far in the past you are talking about. Just like a MacDonald today may have no conscious affiliation to a clan associated with any Donald, nor do everyone called O'Shea know of the Shea, there is no reason to presuppose that an Albukhari has ever been to Bukhara. Though it is true that Mujibur Rahman was called Mujib, not Mujibur, this depends a lot on how familiar the culture is with the etymology etc. In other words, etymology can only tell you how it originated, not how it is used today.
vote up1vote down
So Mujibur would be Mujib-ur-Rahman in a different writing system! Most interesting - I would have assumed that the -ur was just any old syllable, as in Jodhpur (which presumably is different).And you're so right about people losing sight of the original meaning of names like, oh dear, McKenzie for a girl, or Emerson.All the best
vote up1vote down
Jodha (fighter) + pur (settlement)
vote up1vote down