I can’t help it but I am an entrenched traditionalist—or, if
you prefer, conventional soul—about names. I have no serious quarrel with those
who invent names for themselves, but if you want a name hallowed by history, I
say, “Stick to the tradition and don’t meddle or muddle with spelling or
pronunciation.”
Let’s start with the name of the Countess of Essex, married
to Prince Harry. She should be Megan, not Meghan, as she has it. Before an A,
O, or U, the G is automatically hard, as in garden, government, and gutter, and
as such does not require hardening by an extra H. Before an E or I, things can
go either way: getting or gender, gibbon or gist. With Megan, an H after the G,
is no option.
“Meghan” is manifestly de trop and illiterate. So much for the former Meghan Markle. You might
try to excuse this fault by blaming the parents who perpetrated it. But an
intelligent bearer, in this age of openness, could easily have corrected it,
either legally or simply by usage.
Yet what can you expect from a couple that after prolonged
pondering names their son Archie ? That is not even a full-fledged name, merely
a diminutive for someone called Archibald. It derives from the Teutonic
Ercanbald, meaning nobly bold.
Of course, you might argue that President Clinton, for
example, would go by Bill, even if he was christened William Jeffferson
Clinton. When it comes to preference, however, he might as easily have called
himself Habakuk or Marmaduke if he chose to; the aura of William would cling to
him anyway. Other politicos too have used nicknames for their first names, presumably making them more friendly and
eligible.
Now take the case of that obnoxious female chef on TV,
Rachael Ray. Rachael for Rachel is absurd. That second A is clearly derived by
faulty analogy from Michael, but serves no purpose (e.g, different
pronunciation) except to look pretentious. The fact is that both Michael and
Rachel come from the Hebrew, the one meaning “who is like to God,” the other “a
ewe,” “emblematic of gentleness,” as the great linguist, Eric Partridge, on
whose book, “Name This Child,” all my wisdom is based.
Although English names come from all over, some even from
old English, Scottish or Welsh sources, the ones that I would most consider
affected are a number of women’s
names ending in “ah,” where the problem is that they are, for the most part
too historic. Too snobbishly faithful to their origins. The terminal H is
particularly useless, given that, in English, it could
easily be dropped.
Take Deborah, a bee in Hebrew, which to my eye would look
better as Debora. Or take now Sara and Sarah, equally popular, though the first
is all that’s really required. It derives from the Hebrew “Sarai, meaning
quarrelsome, which in time became Sarah, meaning “princess,” influenced no
doubt by “Sar,” a prince. Nora, or Norah, is largely from the Irish. Writes Partridge:
“earlier Onora, a Hibernicism for
‘Honora’ or ‘Honoria.’” That final H seems to me the very acme of
meddlesomeness, as in Norah O’Donnell, the new anchor for “CBS Evening News.
The classic Nora, perhaps under the influence of Ibsen, strikes me as much the
finer.” Hannah, according to Partridge is “a doublet of Anne,” whatever that
exactly means, and seems to me, who have never encountered it, truly fudging
the obvious and quite sufficient Hanna. Ann and Anne seem to me equally
unsullied .
However, I
rather like Anna, “the original form of Anne,” according to my master
Partridge; not because of Tolstoy’s masterpiece, which I shamefully admit to
never having read, but because of any personal associations--Nordic, Teutonic
or Slavic--that I may have gleaned from readings or acquaintances. Thus the
heroine of Lanford Wilson’s play “Burn This” is called Anna. Eugene O’Neill
even gives us an Anna Christie.
As a tennis
fan, let me conclude with two instances from the tennis world. Nick Kyrgios,
the Australian ace of clearly Greek origin, has himself and the world
pronouncing the name as Kyrios, the middle G unsounded. Why? It’s no tongue
twister in its written form, so what has that poor G done to be avoided?
Perhaps the danger of being an undesired mispronunciation in English as
Kyrdgios.
More curious yet is the case of the African American Tiafoe
(his parents immigrated from Africa), who calls himself Frances Tiafoe. He has
been duly warned that Frances is a woman’s name, but that he had its masculine
version, Francis, at his ready disposal. No, he insisted, Frances it must be.
This though he doesn’t sport the least feminine trait, looking rather like a
very butch male person. Francis, extremelyMy popular among Elizabethans,
“derives from Old German, Franco, a free lord.” But isn’t there something a
trifle too free about such gender-bending?
Readers, if you can shed light on either of these instances,
kindly do so. My own full name John Ivan Simon, had that redundant middle name
(Ivan is just another form of John) added by my father to make me sound, in his
view, more American, what with the popularity hereabouts of middle names. To
me, it seems more Russianizing than Americanizing, and I have been avoiding it
whenever possible.
