|Author:||Lumia (Authenticated as Lumia)|
|Date:||May 7, 2010 at 12:20:44 AM|
|Reply to:||Re: Legitimacy by Cleveland Kent Evans|
You are thinking in morphosyntactic rules, but there are other linguistic rules as the spelling rules, which are nowadays the most currently breaked in names in the US.
A name which uses QL, QR, QA, QE, QI or QO will not conform one of the spelling rules in English, because in this language the Q has to be followed by a U (the transcriptions and transliterations of other languages, obviously, don't count because they follow not the English rules, but other rules); that is, Qameron couldn't be a legitimate name in English, because it is breaking a linguistic rule, in this case, a spelling one.
The same goes for the use of apostrophes inside the names, because in English the apostrophe is used to mark elisions in some contractions (isn't, don't...) or in the case of the Saxon genitive. So Ka'yasia couldn't be a legitimate name.
In the case of languages with an official regulator (RAE, Académie...) the ultimate linguistic authority to dictate the language rules (pronunciation, spelling, morphology, sintaxys, semantics, pragmatics, vocabulary) is very clear. In the case of the English, there is not academy, but that doesn't mean that there is not linguistic autority, which resides in authoritative sources, as some recognized linguistic works (dictionaries, grammars), and the uses of reputated institutions (mainly universities as Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard...) and educated speakers.
Since the languages evolve, the rules and the standards are not static and vary; a spurious form can be later accepted as legitimate. But until that the accepted rules and standards change, the name will be not legitimate or spurious.
|Because this message is archived you cannot respond to it.|
|Messages in this thread:|