New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRight now, I'm completely puzzled...
in reply to a message by Cleveland Kent Evans
The INSEE publish every year a CD with names statistics, but it is expensive and that is why I don't have it. However, some websites offer this information from INSEE: prenoms.com, aufeminin.com and tous-les-prenoms.com.
In the case of Idescat (Institut d'Estadística de Catalunya), in general, they offer the names with apparitions of five or more (but they mark if the name is between 1 and 5).
For the births since 1996, they offer the detailed list for names with five or more births, but it is possible to see any name, even with a single birth, with the exact amount for that year, with the function "search for a name". For example (I searched the combination "Nua"):
Name....Position....Frequency
Anuar....40....5
Annuar....1,804....1
Mohamed Anuar....4,895....1
Danua....2,568....1
http://www.idescat.net/onomas/Onomas?TC=555&VN=nua&VA=2006
But, returning to Lilou, I double checked and it seems that any name with less of 3 apparitions is not listed in INSEE lists. So it is possible that the first Lilou was born in 1994 as Rapoport says in her book (but how she knows it is a mystery, because the fact is not coming from INSEE statistics). That is not what has puzzled me in this second check.
I carefully noted the amount for year and the supposed total amount in aufeminin.com.
1997: 19
1998: 78
1999: 175
2000: 388
2001: 693
2002: 1,098
2003: 1,764
2004: 2,107
2005: 2,402
2006: 3,213
Supposed total amount: 11,701. But, the real amount if I add all the numbers is 11,937!! A difference of 236 that I don't know how they could have lost.
I don't count the possible existence of 1 to 6 girls named Lilou born between 1994 and 1996 because the variation is very small.
And, most puzzling, at Rapoport's website (meilleursprenoms.fr), she says: "Au début de l'année 2006, 12.746 Françaises portaient ce prénom. (...) De 1900 à nos jours, son année record d'attribution est 2006, avec 3.205 naissances."
That is, the amount until 2006 is 12,746. But the real amount is 8,724: a difference of 4,022! Ok, perhaps she said "au début" (at the beginning) instead of "à la fin" (at the end). If I add 3,205 (the amount that she claims for the 2006, instead of the amount of 3,213 claimed by aufeminin, which is right for the rest of information according to prenoms.com and tous-les-prenoms.com) to 8,724, the amount is 11,929 and not 12,746 like she affirms. A difference of 817. In which year is supposed that these girls were born?
Any suggestion to understand the fabulous world of the dancing French statistics?
Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com
In the case of Idescat (Institut d'Estadística de Catalunya), in general, they offer the names with apparitions of five or more (but they mark if the name is between 1 and 5).
For the births since 1996, they offer the detailed list for names with five or more births, but it is possible to see any name, even with a single birth, with the exact amount for that year, with the function "search for a name". For example (I searched the combination "Nua"):
Name....Position....Frequency
Anuar....40....5
Annuar....1,804....1
Mohamed Anuar....4,895....1
Danua....2,568....1
http://www.idescat.net/onomas/Onomas?TC=555&VN=nua&VA=2006
But, returning to Lilou, I double checked and it seems that any name with less of 3 apparitions is not listed in INSEE lists. So it is possible that the first Lilou was born in 1994 as Rapoport says in her book (but how she knows it is a mystery, because the fact is not coming from INSEE statistics). That is not what has puzzled me in this second check.
I carefully noted the amount for year and the supposed total amount in aufeminin.com.
1997: 19
1998: 78
1999: 175
2000: 388
2001: 693
2002: 1,098
2003: 1,764
2004: 2,107
2005: 2,402
2006: 3,213
Supposed total amount: 11,701. But, the real amount if I add all the numbers is 11,937!! A difference of 236 that I don't know how they could have lost.
I don't count the possible existence of 1 to 6 girls named Lilou born between 1994 and 1996 because the variation is very small.
And, most puzzling, at Rapoport's website (meilleursprenoms.fr), she says: "Au début de l'année 2006, 12.746 Françaises portaient ce prénom. (...) De 1900 à nos jours, son année record d'attribution est 2006, avec 3.205 naissances."
That is, the amount until 2006 is 12,746. But the real amount is 8,724: a difference of 4,022! Ok, perhaps she said "au début" (at the beginning) instead of "à la fin" (at the end). If I add 3,205 (the amount that she claims for the 2006, instead of the amount of 3,213 claimed by aufeminin, which is right for the rest of information according to prenoms.com and tous-les-prenoms.com) to 8,724, the amount is 11,929 and not 12,746 like she affirms. A difference of 817. In which year is supposed that these girls were born?
Any suggestion to understand the fabulous world of the dancing French statistics?
Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com
1