April 25, 2024

Names and American ethnogenesis, from Dark Age revivals to purely New World creations

I still have plenty to cover in American architecture, but I hit on something pretty big that's worth exploring first. This is not exhaustive -- the big picture, with plenty of details, and as usual more to appear in the comments section.

I've covered names before on the blog, over 10 years ago, looking at trends over time, linking the rise of unique names with the status-striving cycle (vs. egalitarian times, when people feel compelled to give their kids the same names, so no one sticks out like a diva), and other matters.

But now we'll look at the role that given names play within the process of ethnogenesis. Strikingly, Americans began breaking from their British / European / Western / Olde Worlde roots right after landing in the New World -- *not* after the integrative civil war had wrapped up, which is when all other forms of cultural evolution take a distinctly, newly constructed American turn.

Already in the 17th-century, Puritans were giving their kids unique names by the standards of their cousins and ancestors back in Britain -- Prudence, Humility, Chastity, and other "virtue" names. Some of them have stuck, like Faith, Hope, Grace, and Felicity.

Benjamin Franklin, born in 1706, was given a name light-years ahead of its time, even in America, let alone back in Europe, where it was still distinctly Jewish -- 100 years after Franklin's birth, Benjamin Disraeli was the only Euro statesman with that name, and he was Jewish. And Franklin was not an outlier -- two other Benjamins signed the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Harrison V and Benjamin Rush.

A quick look over the other Founding Fathers (signers of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution), reveals all sorts of names that were unusual by contempo Euro standards -- Daniel (x3), Nathaniel (x2), Caesar, Titus, Abraham (x2), Josiah, Gunning, Jacob, Stephen (way ahead of its time), Richard (x5), Jared, Rufus, Arthur, etc.

As for US presidents, unusual names are already apparent with those born in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and it never stopped -- Zachary, Millard, Franklin, Abraham, Ulysses, Chester, Grover, Benjamin, Theodore, Woodrow, Warren, Calvin, Herbert, Franklin again, Dwight, Richard (more common in America by that time, but still not a typical Euro name), Gerald, Ronald, Donald, and Barack (Barry while growing up -- but even Barack, with its weak initial vowel, sounds more like a typically all-American 20th-century name like Brock, Rock, Doc, Spock, etc.)

Masculine names are far more conservative in their trends than feminine names, so the fact that this critical break with the Olde Worlde shows up in early male leaders is quite a testament to how eager we were to fashion a new identity for ourselves once we began adapting to a whole new environment in America.

Why do names defy the usual pattern of a new cultural identity being constructed only after the integrative civil war? Perhaps not as much cohesion is required to introduce new names into circulation via your own flesh-and-blood offspring. It's not like putting together Elizabethan stage plays, Viennese symphonies, or monumental architecture. Your children going to get a name no matter what it is, why not use the opportunity to make it a new one? It's cost-free and doesn't require much teamwork to make it happen, unlike the major cultural products like buildings, dramas, and paintings.

It seems like dialectal variation should behave the same way -- it costs you nothing to introduce a new sound pattern. But it does require lots of cohesion, since all the other members of your speech community must agree to the new sound pattern for it to catch on. Such cohesion only comes about from intense asabiya being born on a meta-ethnic frontier, and the outcome of an integrative civil war, when there is a strong sense of a new Us being fashioned, not just the old Us vs. Them -- but one Us vs. another Us, to determine who among the varied Us gets to set the new standard.

Names are not quite as demanding on cohesion -- not everyone has to give their kids the same new name, whereas everyone does have to pronounce the vowels in "cot" and "caught" the same, if that's to be a new sound pattern. Probably the other members of the community, when they hear a new name, think "Huh, that's a little odd-sounding... but all the other cues tell me it's a member of Team Us, so I guess that's just a new name that some of Us are giving Our kids, better make an exceptional note of it and put it on the safe-list."

Whereas if they hear a funny-sounding name, and all the other cues point to it being a member of Team Them, the strange name is just another aspect of Them-ness, and to blacklist the name as belonging to Outsiders. The other cues being grooming, clothing, subsistence mode, religion, language, totem symbols, folk customs, food traditions, music, dance, and the rest of it.

* * *


Within the general population, Americans have been even more eager to fashion a new cultural identity for themselves, separate from Olde Worlde roots (especially Euro / Western, with Ancient Saharo-Arabian being a possible exception). Right up through the end of the American Century, the top 50 names for baby girls in 1999 included purely American creations, chosen for sounding too exotic for Euro ears, like Samantha, Madison, Jessica, Alyssa, Kayla, Brianna, Grace, Destiny, Brittany, Amber, Savannah, Danielle, Brooke, and Sierra.

Quibblers will claim that Jessica comes from Shakespeare, after the character in The Merchant of Venice. But that was not a real person's name, only a character's name in a stage play. And in the play, it's the name of a Venetian, not an English speaker. It never caught on after that -- and Shakespeare in general, and that play in particular, have always been popular. It was only used on rare occasion, by offbeat parents who wanted to show how cultured or unique they were.

The true reason for Jessica's rise in popularity is its sound similarity to already popular names -- the skyrocketing Jennifer, along with recently trendy names ending in "-ica" like Veronica and Monica, and the appeal of making a feminine form of the popular male name Jesse. Jennifer and/or Jessica also spun-off the name Jenna circa the 1970s and '80s, which is *not* from Shakespeare, but does sound like an already popular name, whether Jennifer or Jessica or both. Jenna then spawned rhyme-mates McKenna / Kenna and Sienna.

There's another character in The Merchant of Venice named Nerissa, and yet that name has never become popular -- outside of the same rare offbeat parents, and the cultured individual who chose the stage name for the Hololive vtuber Nerissa Ravencroft.

To the extent that Nerissa is appealing enough to become the stage name for a major entertainment brand like Hololive, it is due to being a member of a rhyming class of names -- Melissa, Alyssa, Kissa, etc. In fact, it's a minimal mutation of Melissa, changing the initial nasal to another nasal, and the medial liquid to another liquid. Phonology, not semantics and referents, are what drive the evolution in names.

Portia, another character from the same play, caught on somewhat better than Nerissa, but it's not clear that it's due to that character, instead of the prestigious car manufacturer's name, Porsche, pronounced the same in American English. In fact, the spelling variant Porsha is another trendy American name -- and as usual, the midwits who spin their BS folk etymologies behind names, claim that it's a German word meaning "offering". Nope -- it's just a typically American-sounding name, regardless of any false cognates it may have in the world's myriad languages or its literatures or its luxury brands.

No one behaves according to what a name "means" across the zillions of false cognates it may have somewhere out there -- it's how it *sounds* that drives our behavior.

This is because names are not a private affair -- they serve as shibboleths in a social context, identifying members of Us from members of Them. If you don't recognize anyone's names, you must be dealing with Them. If their names are already known, or familiar-sounding enough, you must be dealing with Us. Shibboleths are about pronunciation and sound, not meaning or substance. I don't care what your name alludes to -- it sounds totally weird to my ears, so you must be an outsider, to be treated like one.

As America separated itself from its British, Euro, Western, and Olde Worlde roots, the names belonging to the latter groups became contaminated-sounding -- too Them, not sufficiently Us. Hence the present situation, where the top 50 baby girls names for 2023 include not only many of those from 1999 listed above -- but wait, there's more!, like Ava, Mia, Chloe, Avery, Addison (rhymed from Madison), Zoe (rhyming with Chloe), Layla (rhymed from the already popular Kayla, not descended from or alluding to its false cognate in Arabic), Brooklyn, and Maya (with lower-ranking but still popular rhyme-mates Kaia, Gaia, probably Raya, Vaya, and who knows what else next).

Gotta love the absolutely desperate cluelessness of the semantic-focused spin-meisters at thebump.com (as in, baby bump), who claim that the name Kaia has Scandinavian, Estonian, Greek, Japanese, Hawaiian, and Hebrew roots -- a post hoc rationalization for everybody! Nope -- it simply rhymes with the already popular Maya, and doesn't sound Euro, so it's suitably American.

I got a pleasant chuckle from hearing Dasha on Red Scare saying she was eager to have a baby boy so she could name him Honor, with the usual wahmen's rationalization about it being semantic -- a latter-day virtue name. But nope, it's simply a rhyming variant of the already popular Connor. She was so eager and bubbly while spinning the rationalization, though, that I hate to "decode" what was really guiding her decision -- typical male-brain always trying to analyze things, just let a girl feel her feelings, sheesh! ^_^

BTW, we can probably add McKenzie to the pure American creation list -- it's tempting to think of it as adopting a surname to a given name, but it also comes in the non-surname form of Kenzie, without the Celtic patronymic prefix "Mc / Mac". The same goes for McKenna, which comes in the non-surname form of Kenna.

Ultimately these all trace back to the earlier popular name Mikayla, which may be a purely new creation, or a novel feminine form of the male name Michael -- but in any case, where the initial sounds of "mik" are not a patronymic prefix at all. Mikayla comes in a rhyming pair with Kayla, and that supposed shortening does not involve dropping a patronymic prefix -- so we don't need to assume that process is happening either with McKenna to Kenna, or McKenzie to Kenzie.

Also, the supposed Celtic surnames are tightly constrained by phonotactics -- there are a zillion Celtic surnames that begin with Mc / Mac, and yet the three most popular ones belong to popular rhyming classes. Mikayla, Kayla, Layla, Shayla, Jayla, etc. And Kenna, Jenna, Sienna, etc. (Kenna may also be a novel feminine form of the recently popular male name Ken.) And even Kenzie is a close rhyme for the popular late-20th-C girl's name Lindsey.

The stressed vowel is produced a little higher in the mouth for Lindsey, but given the tendency for Western American dialects to lower front vowels (e.g., Valley Girls pronouncing "bitch" as "betch"), maybe they were already pronouncing Lindsey as "Lendsey", making Kenzie a perfect rhyme for it after all.

I'll only briefly reiterate Stanley Lieberson's important finding that naming trends do not follow appearances in popular culture, but rather the opposite -- some name is already climbing from obscurity into prominence, and the culture creators sense that just as well as their everyman audience does, so they choose it for their cultural work. They're two sides of the same coin, not one causing the other.

There are a few exceptions, IIRC, but in general it is pure post hoc rationalization to point to some pop culture character that came out before a name became super-popular and say, that figure made the name popular. It was already becoming popular before the character, and the character's creator was jumping on the bandwagon just as much as real-life mothers were.

Just as one example, Wikipedia, citing one of those dumdum baby name sites, claims that Kayla's popularity was due to a character by that name who debuted in 1982 on Days of Our Lives, a popular American soap opera TV show. In reality, Kayla's popularity was already shooting through the roof before 1982 -- it ranked #578 in '81, up from #594 in '80, way up from #678 in '79 and #677 in '78, up from #694 in '77, way up from #854 at the start of the '70s.

It did shoot up big-time during '82, when it ranked #132, but this is just how exponential growth and decay works -- it builds slow, then goes really fast, then slows down / tapers off, then gently declines, then crashes, then mellows out. That is a completely endogenous process, it doesn't get some external injection of oomph just before entering its steep-climb phase. And Kayla's growth was already well under way before a soap opera writer jumped on the bandwagon at the right time.

Good culture creators do not influence the everyday lives of millions of people -- they have an intuitive knack for spotting what is already in demand, and delivering it to the audience. Someone senses that the name Kayla is building steam among real-life mothers -- well, if that's what they want, then that's what they'll get, a new (fictional) person in their lives named Kayla.

* * *


That brings us to regional variation within America. As usual, the main source of cultural innovation is along the meta-ethnic frontier with the Indians, Mexicans, and somewhat the Japanese -- out West. Back-East names are more conservative, notwithstanding the Puritans' novel virtue names. Back then, Puritans *were* on the meta-ethnic frontier with Indians -- but over time, that frontier shifted further and further out West, leaving East Coasters to favor Euro-LARP-ing names more than West Coast Americans do.

Here is a data visualization from over 10 years ago, demonstrating the pattern that everyone always finds with names in America. The distinctive, new, all-American, non-Euro names are born from the Midwest to the Pacific Coast. Even within the Deep South, Louisiana or Mississippi is more likely to spawn a new popular name than Georgia or South Carolina.

Take just one salient example, the quintessentially American name Brittany. It was rhymed from the already popular Whitney, not the false cognate from the name of a region in Northwestern France, which pronounces the "a" vowel, unlike the American girl's name, which is pronounced BRIT-nee, where the "a" is silent, and where the stressed syllable is first rather than last, just like Whitney. The spelling variant Britney, as in Britney Spears, makes this clear.

At its peak of popularity, circa 1980, it was most distinctive of Utah and a broad swath of states from the Plains and Rocky Mountains region, and only somewhat distinctive of states east of the Mississippi River (Britney Spears was an outlier for being born in Mississippi).

This geographic gradient reflects the general pattern -- constructing a new identity is done by those closest to the meta-ethnic frontier, where they are being shaped into a whole new people by their conflict with the meta-ethnic nemesis, and must cohere very intensely into a new Us in order to fend off and perhaps even conquer Them.

The standard dialect in American and Canadian English is Western -- East Coast dialects sound the most harshly non-standard, whether Yankee or Confederate. And so the pattern goes with names, a linguistic element that is also strongly based on sound / phonology for determining how standard it is. It's a shibboleth.

* * *


I'll wrap up with a discussion of a very broad and in-depth discovery I made in the comments to the previous post, about America being a Dark Age culture out of sync with the Old World timeline, which left the Dark Ages behind circa 1300 -- but was part of a previous Dark Age before circa 700 BC, with Classical eras from 700 BC to 300 AD and from 1300 AD to present.

I explained this cycle by referring to the relative dominance of nomadism vs. sedentarism, with much of Eurasia being united by the Steppe as a source of nomadism, putting them all on the same timeline and cycle. Nomadic dominance leads to weak central states, and other aspects of Dark Purity cultures. Sedentary dominance leads to strong central states, and other aspects of Enlightened Perversion cultures.

But there are notable exceptions that spun off from the Eurasian landmass -- America and Japan, which remained a Dark Age / feudal culture until very recently, and arguably remains one, just like America.

(As a timely reminder of America's weak central state, look at who is sent to deal with all the anti-Zionist protests on college campuses right now -- not a federal organization like the US Army, FBI, etc., but city-level forces like the NYPD or state-level ones like the Texas National Guard, under the authority of mayors or governors, who are like regional counts, dukes, or barons from the feudal Dark Ages, not the president or any other federal official, who are like the king and central royal court from the Dark Ages. In Europe, where central states are stronger, they would send in a national-level gendarmerie like Spain's Guardia Civil for protests erupting around the nation.)

Looking over the names of American presidents, and having delved into the European Dark Ages so much recently, I can't help but be struck by three presidents having names that end in "-ald", as though they were a Frankish or Viking chieftain named Theobald or Grimwald.

This is one domain of naming trends where substance, meaning, and allusion do come into play -- not at the level of individual names, which are tightly constrained by sound patterns, but broad sources of inspiration to draw from, while obeying the all-important sound patterns. Not every name can be a totally original coinage.

In the 19th century, in the Old World itself, there was a general backlash against the centuries-long consolidation of central states and their overly rigid and dehumanizing / domesticating cultures. The Romantic movement, the Gothic novel, the Grimm brothers collecting and publishing fairytales, a Gothic revival in architecture (technically part of the civilizing phase of the cycle, but the earliest stage of it, and so feeling more thankfully barbarian in comparison to Neoclassical), Wagnerian operas about the Dark Ages and Bronze Age mythologies of Germanic peoples, and so on and so forth.

This didn't last very long in Europe as a major cultural phenomenon, not making it out of the 19th century, but it does still linger as a minority tendency. It was more of a temporary pressure relief valve for all that stultifying order and domestication that had been building up since 1300 -- not an endless new trail they were going to blaze.

Heavy metal bands that tap into Britain's Stonehenge era will always be more popular in America, a bona fide Dark Age feudal society. And as the Old World empires all bit the dust in the early 20th C, most of them fell under American vassalage (except for China), and so they adopted some degree of our very eager indulging in the Dark Age cultures of the Olde Worlde.

In names, this backlash and Dark Age revival showed up in old Germanic names making a comeback within Europe itself -- in Britain, Albert, Herbert, and other -berts, along with Robert, which never fell totally out of fashion after the Dark Ages. The first and only British prime minister to have such a neo-bert name, other than Robert, was H. H. Asquith -- Herbert Henry -- born in 1852. Among royalty, Prince Albert (husband to Queen Victoria) was born in 1819, and several generations of his male descendants were named Albert as well.

America would take that revival and make it permanent, with Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump.

Elsewhere in Europe, Engelbert made a 19th-C comeback in the eastern German-speaking lands, including places in their sphere like Slovenia. Oswald made a brief comeback in Eastern Europe as well.

But in America, not only did we elevate the popularity of Robert to all-time heights during the early-mid 20th century, and maintain other lesser ones such as Albert, Herbert, Norbert, and Gilbert, we enshrined this Dark Age suffix as a full name unto itself -- Bert / Burt. For real people like Burt Lancaster and Burt Reynolds, this may have been a nickname for Burton, but that's still a nickname that no British Burtons had used before. And in the case of Bert from Sesame Street's Bert & Ernie duo, it was spelled like the suffix and was not a shortened form of Burton / Berton / Bertram / etc.

The open-ended productive use of -bert continues outside of existing -bert names, into American novelty names in pop culture. There's icons like the Dilbert comic strip, the Q*bert video game character (a very rare American-created, rather than Japanese, arcade game from the Golden Age), the name Goobert that the most popular English vtuber, Gawr Gura (alias Gooba), gives to some of the characters she plays as in video games, as well as fellow Hololive EN vtuber Fauna naming her sourdough starter culture Doughbert. All part of her love for fantastical fairytale forest culture. Back when men had real names like Dagobert, Rigobert, and Humbert. ^_^

(The protag from Lolita, Humbert Humbert, is supposed to be stereotypically Euro, and a fish out of water in America, and yet he has a very American name -- a Dark Age Germanic -bert name. The only finishing touch to Americanize it would be shortening it to a monosyllabic nickname like Hum.)

Born around the same time as the first -bert prime minister was the first -ald, Archibald Primrose. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, two separate Harold prime ministers were born, Macmillan and Wilson. (Harold was Harald in the Dark Ages.)

Sidenote: Boris Johnson has a Dark Age name, after the greatest of the Bulgarian emperors, from the 9th century, who is responsible for Christianizing Eastern Europe, bringing literacy to them, and establishing the foundation for Slavic liturgies.

I think the -ald ending is not as productive in American English cuz it's not such a well-formed syllable, lacking an initial consonant. Maybe just -bald or -wald would work, but -bald has a false cognate with negative associations. And we're familiar enough with German toponyms that -wald sounds too much like the name of a place, not a person. IDK.

Aside from these Germanic names from the Dark Age, there are several others originally from Greek -- meaning Byzantine, not Hellenic. We're Dark Age, so must our Greek inspirations -- either Byzantine or Bronze Age.

Christopher and Stephen were only common during the Dark Ages in Europe, going into decline during the Renaissance and falling into total oblivion after then. But in the 20th C., there can be no more all-American names than Chris and Steve (the most ubiquitous Boomer name). As pointed out earlier, America was *really* early on the Stephen trend, with a signer of the Declaration of Independence being a Stephen. In fact, although he went by Grover in adulthood, the late 19th-century president Cleveland was born and raised as Stephen.

The last and only British ruler named Stephen was king during the 12th century, during their empire's integrative civil war (the Anarchy), as the English were consolidating their initial victory over their meta-ethnic nemesis (the Vikings / Danelaw, who were expelled by the Norman Conquest).

Then there are Bronze Age Greek names like Jason, that were never that popular even during Hellenic Greece. Nor was it popular during the Dark Ages. There's one Italian born in the 1400s named Giasone (del Maino), and another born in the 1500s (De Nores). Otherwise, almost all Jasons of any note are Americans born in the 1800s and after. It's so iconically American that it has been chosen as a rhyming inspiration -- for Mason, Payson, Grayson, Chayson, Kayson, Brayson, etc.

There are so many Greek names from the Classical era that we are famililar with -- Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Archimedes, Euclid, and the list goes on and on -- yet we have decided to entirely ignore them, preferring instead the monster-battling heroes of the pre-Classical era, or the heroic Christian martyrs of the Byzantine / Dark Age era. Nothing could be less appealing to American honor-culture sensibilities than "being good at math and philosophy" or "being a theater kid".

Speaking of "monster-battling" -- Bronze Age epithets like Homer's "swift-footed Achilles" fell into disfavor during the Classical era. Too concrete, and therefore animalistic or barbaric. The Romans did include a descriptive term like "august" within their 17 other elements of a full name, but that dilutes its power. And like "august," they weren't so concretely physical.

It just doesn't pack a punch like Charles the Bald, a 9th-century Carolingian emperor, whose own father was the emperor Louis the Pious. Or the 12th-century Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa / Rotbart -- Redbeard. Or the 10th-century Viking king, Harald Bluetooth. Or the 7th-century Byzantine emperor Justinian II the Slit-nosed. Or the 12th-century British king, Richard the Lionheart. Or back to Boris of the 9th-century Bulgarian Empire -- known as The Baptizer. And on and on and on...

Well, leave it to a neo-Dark Age culture like America, where our politicians are now known as Crooked Hillary Clinton, Lyin' Ted Cruz, Sleepy Joe Biden, etc. During Trump's first primary campaign, I pointed out that he descended from literal Vikings -- the clan MacLeod, whose namesake was a Viking ruler named Ljotr. At least that's the tradition, it could be a case of legitimizing one's group by means of an illustrious legendary foreign founder, much like the Rurikid dynasty in Russia claiming descent from a non-existent, legendary Viking ancestor.

Whether he has authentic Norse DNA in his veins or not, Trump surely is a Dark Age feudal leader of a weak central state, and he knows what buttons to push to resonate with its cultural values. And weak central state people love nothing more than blunt epithets. See also the once-common Italian-American practice of blunt epithets like Fat Tony, Danny No-Shoes, Jimmy Too-Short, etc. Or African-American rappers and gang members using epithets like Fat Joe, Megan Thee Stallion, etc.

Europeans haven't named leading figures "fat" since the days of Louis the Fat (also, the Fighter), a 12th-century king of the Franks. Maybe there are a few straggler examples into the 13th or 14th centuries, but once the proto-Renaissance showed up during the 1300s, it was all over for blunt epithets.

I'll bet that's a very broad phenomenon, but I don't have time to look into Dark Age Middle Eastern, South Asian, Central Asian, or Chinese cultures right now.

I'll bet Japan loved blunt and concrete epithets from about 1200 or 1300 onward, perhaps right up to the present day. The most popular vtuber in Japan, Marine, has a family name Houshou, meaning "treasure bell/chime", which seems to function more like a concrete descriptive epithet, and not a family name indicating who her parents are. Likewise, Korone is known by the epithet in place of a family name, Inugami, meaning "dog(gy)-god".

So when translating their full names into English, instead of Marine Houshou, it's Marine the Treasure-bell. And instead of Korone Inugami, it's Korone the Doggy-god, like good ol' Dark Age epithets. ^_^

Although the English Hololive girls don't have this format for their names, as members of Dark Age America and Canada, some of them do make epithets of their own, like Gura referring to herself as the Shark, Mumei as the Owl, Bae as the Rat, etc.

Without getting further into the Dark Age weeds, I'll just note that Geoffrey (later, Jeffrey) and Richard were common Dark Age Germanic names that were resurrected and made super-common in America during the 20th century.

Also, Arthurian legendary names. Not just Arthur, but Morgan, Guinevere / Jennifer (and similar-sounding names like Gwendolyn, Gwen, and Gwyneth, which most Americans pronounce as Gweneth, all of which also hint at the character Gawain), Elaine, Lynnette, Taliesin (Frank Lloyd Wright's headquarters), and perhaps not Lancelot -- but Lance! That has to be the connection. Monosyllabic shortening -- of what other possible longer name? Gotta be from Lancelot, given how much we're obsessed with Camelot. Some of these, but not all, were part of the limited 19th-century Romantic backlash in Europe, but we made them permanent, or are entirely responsible for (like Lance).

Speaking of Frank Lloyd Wright, and the Franks, that given name was confined to the Dark Ages until resurrected in America during the 19th century, including the birth of the Father of Modern and American architecture himself. Post-Dark Age Euros only used variations like Francis, Francisco, Francois, Francesco, etc. -- not Frank itself, or even the related Franklin, which was also resurrected in America during the 19th century, including the greatest president in our history, the New Deal trailblazer himself, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The name Frank just sounds too, well, frank, to domesticated sophisticates, so they could only preserve it in the frilly-and-gay embellishment Francis, Francois, etc. In America, nothing could sound more embarrassingly prissy than the name Francis, in place of the honorable alternative Frank. I think San Francisco would sound -- and then become -- less gay if it were renamed San Franco!

I have no idea if there's a case of convergent evolution between American names and Euro Dark Age names, in the same way that our similar environments have produced similar architectural styles (closed-solid-heavy slabs and caves and fortresses). There may be something there, but I haven't looked into it yet. Maybe later, in the comments. That would require cross-cultural confirmation as well, and I really doubt I'll get into the evolution of popular name sound patterns all across Eurasia, from the Bronze Age to present.

But just based on how Frank went to Francis / Francois / etc., then back to Frank in America, there could be something to how prissy-and-sissy names sound during the 1000 years of the cycle when sedentarism is dominant over nomadism. Francis has changed the hard "k" into a sibilant "s", then added a high-front vowel (connoting things that are small, weak), and another "s" after it.

I mean, you can totally make up a barbarian name -- and yet instantly recognize it as barbarian. Conan, Thundarr, Krull, Chewbacca, etc. Only some of that is semantic association with known, existing barbarian names. Some of that has to be purely an effect of sound symbolism, e.g. the absence of high-front vowels and sibilants (at least voiceless ones like "s" and "sh" -- "z" is "zh" are OK).

Alfred, Dagobert, Harald, Arthur -- no high-front vowels, no sibilants (especially voiceless ones). Just a brief impression, without a systematic survey, but may be something there...

102 comments:

  1. The Abbasid caliph al-Wathiq, who fascinated Romantic-era Europeans enough to be the protag of an Orientalist Gothic novel (Vathek, by William Beckford), has a full name without a single high-front vowel (which does exist in Arabic -- "i").

    Abū Jaʿfar Hārūn ibn Muḥammad

    The "i" is only there as part of the patronymic "ibn" meaning "son of", which is part of the generic template, not his specific names.

    Also, perhaps no sibilants, let alone voiceless ones -- only "j" which is voiced. IDK whether it was a sibilant, like "zh" (as in present-day Levantine dialects), or an affricate, like "dg" (as in present-day Mesopotamian and Gulf dialects), or a stop, like "g" (as in present-day Egyptian dialects), back in 9th-century Iraq. But it was not voiced, in any case.

    The "i" vowel does appear in his epithet, al-Wathiq (bi-llah), but perhaps as an epithet rather than a personal name that's not so prissy-and-sissy?

    Also, yes, he has an epithet! Not just a personal name. "The Believer (in Allah)".

    That's all the further I'm going for now. Just have to consult the good ol' Abbasid Caliphate to ask it what the Dark Ages were like in the Middle East, before leaving (for now).

    ReplyDelete
  2. The old world has stricter gun control laws as well compared to America, and the Euro-LARPers back east want to implement stricter gun controls in America too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From where are you getting these supposedly novel names? Outside of the Puritan ones, many of your oddities are common, even classuc British names. A 5 min check of Shakespeare, a google if English parish records yields data such as this.

    https://www.nancy.cc/2021/01/22/popular-male-names-england-1560-1621/

    The theory is intriguing, but the premises need work.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well that list is not a "top 100" list like the "top 100 American baby names in a year" -- mainly cuz it's drawn from such a small population, i.e. people associated with Oxford University, where the top 100 names cover a far greater share of the population, as opposed to the top 100 names in America where millions of babies are born in a year.

    So at #54, Geoffrey / Jeffrey, there are only 38 individuals with that name across 60 years. Hardly anyone -- and that shows up in lists of famous Geoffrey's, where there's basically no one after Geoffrey Chaucer, who was born in the 1340s.

    Names that I said were resurrected by Americans (with or without the Euro Romantic revival of the 1800s), and sure enough do not show up on that list at all, as in not even a single individual in over 60 years -- Frank / Franklin, Jason, Albert, Alfred, Norbert, Burt / Bert, Donald, Ronald, Archibald, Jared, Rufus, etc.

    Some of them are so rare there are only less than 10 in over 60 years, such as Gerald (only 1), Theodore, etc.

    And as I said, most of the "top 100" are already rare, including Stephen (86 individuals in 60 years, vs. several thousands apiece of John, Thomas, and William).

    Rising in popularity doesn't mean everyone has the name, nor does declining in popularity mean no one has the name. Lists of famous people with the name turn up no Stephens after the Dark Ages, and even this list that casts a broader net hardly catches any of them -- as opposed to how easy it would have been back when it was common enough that the king was named Stephen.

    By the Renaissance / Early Modern period, Stephen was languishing in obscurity in England, and only Americans of the 19th C rescued the name, rising so much in popularity that it became one of the definitive Boomer names by the 1950s, entering the top 20.

    And that's just the male names, which I mentioned are more conservative than female names. A similar list of women associated with some institution in England in the 16th century will show the pattern even better -- no Brookes, Savannahs, Samanthas, Kaylas, Kenzies, Gwens, Elaines, Lynnettes, and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To take 2 more examples of -bert names, that list has 2 Ethelberts and 1 Fulbert -- that is far rarer than their frequency during the Dark Ages, when every Tom, Dick, and Harry was named (A)Ethelbert, including saints, archbishops, and kings.

    The list of famous (A)Ethelberts shows that they're all from the 6th to 9th centuries, i.e. when the name was common (as were all other -bert names), and only again with 19th-century births, most of whom are American rather than British.

    Finding a handful of attestations across more than 50 years and covering over 10,000 people, does not make the name common or rising in popularity. Quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The last king of England with an epithet was Edward Longshanks, who reigned during the late 13th and very early 14th centuries. There's that 1300 date again. His epithet is physical and concrete, too, not abstract.

    ("Bloody" Mary was only used as propaganda by her factional opponents, and even that weak example was from the 16th C.)

    The first king of England, Alfred (late 9th century), is known as "the Great", although that's not very concrete.

    In between those two are quite a long list of epithet-bearing kings:

    Aethelstan the Glorious

    Edmund the Magnificent

    Eadwig All-Fair (physical)

    Edgar the Peaceful

    Edward the Martyr

    Aethelred the Unready

    Sweyn Forkbeard (physical)

    Edmund Ironside (physical)

    Cnut the Great

    Harold Harefoot (physical)

    Edward the Confessor

    William the Conqueror

    William Rufus (physical)

    Henry Beauclerc

    Henry Curtmantle (physical)

    Richard the Lionheart (physical)

    John Lackland

    ReplyDelete
  7. When I become dictator of the world, I wish to be known as Agnostic the Epithet-bearer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Harold / Harald didn't show up at all in that 16th-C list either.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Something weird is going on with French kings and epithets -- they all seem to have one. Maybe cuz they're all named Louis and need something else to distinguish which one they are?

    In any case, most of the ones after 1300 are abstract, not physical.

    Start with Charlemagne, i.e. Charles the Great, then Louis the Pious, then Charles the Bald -- that's physical, from the 9th C.

    In fact, before Charlemagne, there was the de facto ruler if not king, Charles Martel -- "the Hammer", a physical epithet. Back to the Carolingians:

    Louis the Stammerer (physical)

    Charles the Fat (physical)

    Charles the Simple

    Louis the Do-Nothing

    Robert the Pious

    Philip the Amorous (pretty physical)

    Louis the Fat (physical)

    Philip Augustus (still probably an epithet, not a second personal name)

    Louis the Lion (physical)

    Louis the Saint

    Philip the Bold

    Philip the Fair (physical)

    Louis the Quarreler (pretty physical)

    Philip the Tall (physical)

    Charles the Fair (physical)

    And that's the end of the physical epithets. After that they become less common overall, and are abstract when they are used -- the Just, the Beloved, the Wise, etc.

    Charles the Fair reigned during the 1320s, right around the time when the system is shifting from nomad-dominant to sedentary-dominant.

    So, although the French are more liberal in handing out epithets, their pattern over time mirrors that of the English / British.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Without going through the whole list of Scottish kings, the last one with an epithet was James II Fiery Face, who reigned during the mid-1400s. He was a late outlier, as the last before him was John Balliol, Empty Cloak, who reigned in the late 13th C.

    Wiki's list of monarchs says Robert III, who reigned circa 1400, is known as "the Lame King," but his individual entry has no such epithet.

    The first Scottish monarch with an epithet was the first, Kenneth MacAlpin the Conqueror, from the 9th C. Most of them after have epithets, and they tend to be physical -- the Wine-Bountiful, the White, the Diseased, the Rough, etc.

    So, Scotland mirrors the English and French patterns over time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As for the Holy Roman Emperors, the first one after the collapse of the Frankish Empire to bear an epithet is Louis the Blind (a physical epithet), who reigned in the very early 10th C.

    Several physical epithets soon after -- Otto the Red, Henry the Black, Frederick Redbeard (Barbarossa), Frederick stupor mundi, who reigned in the late 13th C, and was the last of the period when it was common.

    The last one was a late outlier, Frederick the Peaceful, who reigned in the second half of the 1400s. Aside from being an outlier, his epithet is not physical. After that, nothing whatsoever.

    As for German monarchs (distinct from emperor), the last to bear an epithet, and a physical one at that, was Frederick the Fair, who reigned in the early 1300s (when else?). The first one, from the Ottonian dynasty, was Henry the Fowler (a physical activity, not an abstract quality), who reigned in the 10th C.

    Generally, though, the Germans are far less generous in handing out epithets -- and yet their pattern over time is the same as England, Scotland, and France.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Zipping over to Hungary, the last king with a physical epithet was Charles the Small, who reigned for a few months in the late 1300s. There was a late outlier with an abstract epithet from the late 1400s, Matthias the Just, after whom there were no others, even before they got absorbed into the Austrian Empire.

    The first King of Hungary, from the early 11th C., had an epithet, Saint Stephen. After him there are a fair number with epithets, including physical ones -- Andrew the White, Bela the Champion, Coloman the Learned / Bookish, Bela the Blind, etc.

    Among the Grand Princes of Kiev, the first of them bears an epithet, Oleg the Seer, from the 9th C. More of them follow: Saint Vladimir the Great / the Baptizer, Sviatopolk the Cursed, Yaroslav the Wise.

    Among Grand Princes further east that would evolve into Muscovy / Russia, there's Vsevolod the Big Nest (reigned during the late 12th and early 13th centuries), Mikhail the Brave, Dmitry the Fearsome Eyes (hard to get more physical than that), Ivan the Moneybag, Simeon the Proud, Ivan the Fair (reigned during the 1350s).

    The last Grand Princes of Moscow with physical epithets are Vasily the Squint and Vasily the Dark, from the mid-15th C. Much like France, Russia is more generous in handing out epithets, but overall they become less common after the mid-1400s, and they are abstract (the Great, the Blessed, the Peacemaker, etc.).

    So, same pattern over time in Eastern Europe, not just Western Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Spanish are very generous in handing out epithets to their monarchs, more than the French or Russians. And yet the same pattern over time shows up -- the last with a physical epithet was Philip the Handsome, who reigned for a few months in 1506. They're all pretty abstract after him.

    And yet, they were fairly abstract before him as well -- only Henry the Infirm (as King of Castile, before they had united all of Spain) had a physical epithet, and he reigned circa 1400.

    The two monarchs after the Franco era do not have epithets.

    Because Spain gives an epithet to almost everyone, the pattern is harder to discern, but it's there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To wrap up with a quick trip to Scandinavia, in post-Viking Denmark, they hardly gave anyone a physical epithet, but they did give some of them abstract ones -- Valdemar the Victorious, Eric Ploughpenny, Eric Klipping, etc.

    The last Danish monarch to bear an epithet was Valdemar Atterdag ("Return of the Day"), who reigned during the mid-1300s.

    Same decline pattern over time in the North of Europe as well.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Regarding the idea of calling out the local cops on campus radicalism, this goes back at least as far as Governor Ronald Reagan:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpg0UfpuUAs

    ReplyDelete
  16. Do you ever think there will be a revival of men naming their sons after themselves (e.g. Joseph Kennedy Jr, Paul Martin Jr, etc)? That's another custom that seems to have vanished with second-wave feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The 8th/9th-century Abbasid Caliph at the start of the Islamic Golden Age was also known by an epithet -- Harun al-Rashid, i.e. Harun (Aaron) "the Just / Rightly-Guided".

    Anyone with an Arabic "laqab" (epithet) sounds like a Dark Age figure. Checking out some more...

    Saladin, the 12th-century Muslim leader against the Crusaders, is known by an epithet, Saladin, meaning "Righteousness of the Religion," not by his personal name Yusuf (Joseph) or his family name (ibn Ayyub).

    The 10th-century Fatimid Caliph who saw the rapid decline of his empire is known by an epithet, al-Muqtadir (bi-llah) -- "Mighty (in Allah)" -- not by his given name Jaʿfar, or the patronymic phrase ibn Ahmad al-Muʿtaḍid (which contains his father's epithet), or the phrase indicating who his son was, Abu’l-Faḍl.

    The 11th-century Sultan of the Seljuk Empire who greatly expanded its territory, is known by an epithet -- Alp Arslan, meaning "Heroic Lion" in Turkish, not his given name, Muhammad, or the phrase indicating his father (bin Dawud Chaghri). Crucially, his epithet is not in Arabic but Turkish, and makes no religious allusion. This was just how leaders were known back then -- no matter where they came from, what religion they belonged to, or the semantic content behind their epithet.

    By contrast, a 20th-century leader like the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, does not have an epithet -- Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman bin Faisal Al Saud. "Abdulaziz" is his personal given name, and the rest indicate his father, grandfather, and clan / royal house.

    It's all so formulaic! So bureaucratic! Fill out this form with the information about your given name, your father, his father, and your royal house, and we will deterministically, algorithmically return your full name.

    Dark Age cultures chafe at such rigid, order-obsessed formulas that reduce people to data. They want to be known by a name that tells others what makes them a special unique individual. Perhaps in a humbling way, perhaps in an elevating way -- but in either case, something spontaneous, creative, open to choice, that only the human mind can come up with, not a cold invariant formula or schema.

    Strong central states --> bureaucritization of the human spirit.

    Weak central states --> liberation of the human spirit (just like wandering nomads).

    ReplyDelete
  18. If Nassim Taleb had belonged to the House of Wisdom during the Dark Ages, he would have been known by a laqab -- something like, Nassim al-Qatil al-Mughfilin ("Nassim the Idiot-Slayer" in my very rough attempt at Arabic -- hopefully "mughfil" doesn't have one of those weird broken plural forms, and hopefully "mughfil" is the proper choice of "idiot" in this context).

    That would not be possible if he'd stayed back in the Olde Worlde, which is still in its sedentary sophisticated phase.

    But since he's moved to a Dark Age culture like America, he can be known by an English epithet -- Nassim the BS-Slayer.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Although he does come from the Olde Worlde, he comes from a very weak-state part of it -- Northern Lebanon. That's why he resonates with other weak-state regions of the Mediterranean like Southern Italy and Sicily, as well as their descendants in America like the "Fat Tony" type in the East Coast (who are, not surprisingly, known by colorful epithets).

    And although he likes to style himself as a Hellenist, he also styles himself as a Byzantine -- which is more apropos. He's not a mechanical problem-solver or autistic nitpicker, he's a monster-battling hero -- against trolls, intellectual-yet-idiots, BS-vendors, charlatans, and various other monsters, beasts, and demons.

    More like a Bronze Age Greek hero, or a Dark Age Byzantine saint or martyr, like St. George (the Dragon-Slayer).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He regularly derides "Nordic Supremacists", Arabists, and PC Fanonists alike:

      https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1234514643160379393?lang=en

      https://medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-genetics/something-nordic-supremacists-will-not-like-44d99e8a4188

      https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1724680823184474462

      https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1721871786034213355

      Delete
  20. Exploring a point I made in the previous comment thread, it seems like "monsters" are a mythological counterpart of "nomads" from the real-world threats that Dark Age people face.

    Not just that they are forces of chaos, harm, predation, etc. -- but that there are a whole lot of them, from various species, all of whom prey upon the sedentary and orderly people, who long for a hero to battle all those various monsters.

    Nomads form tribal confederations that include a motley crew of members, and each decade or century, there's a new confederation that sweeps through the sedentary lands -- Alans, Vandals, Huns, Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Magyars, and on and on and on.

    Like "monsters," they speak different languages, have different styles of dress and grooming, have different sets of weapons, etc. Like different species of monsters -- some fly, some are from the sea, some are poisonous, some are sleek and hairless, some are hirsute, but all are roaming and raiding predators.

    In a strong central state era, these motley crews of enemies have been eliminated, and there's one great big monarch, and one great big enemy -- some rival monarch.

    In mythology / religion, this takes the form of an all-powerful single God, and a nearly all-powerful single Devil, not a variety of monster species. At most, the Devil commands a hierarchy of demons -- but in a Dark Age culture, the variety of monster species are not commanded by an absolutist villain.

    On the other side, Dark Age cultures rely on a variety of benevolent helpers and allies, who are not human -- in Dark Age Christianity, the broad cast of characters known as "saints". Christians stopped focusing so much on saints after 1300 in the Olde Worlde.

    They may still honor them once a year, name children after them, and such -- but they're not part of the real living world like they were in the Dark Ages, urgently being preyed to or given offerings, as though they were the "benevolent nomads" like knights-errant among their fellow human beings, who could help them out in a weak-state / nomad-dominant world.

    Same with gnomes, elves, fairies, and other benevolent (or at least neutral, and possibly helpful) non-human creatures. Bronze Age Europe, Dark Age Europe, brief revival in 19th-century Europe, but mostly gone during their Classical and post-Dark Age periods.

    The Japanese, as another present-day Dark Age culture, still believe and behave as though various species of natural spirits and unnatural creatures exist -- whether harmful ones like ghosts and demons and monsters, or good ones like helpers, protectors, and providers (see also, Santa and the Tooth Fairy, in America).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Japanese I think are more polite than the mainland Chinese today though:

      https://rubyronin.com/multilingual-split-personality/

      Delete
  21. In other words, "weak central state" applies to the bad guys (real or mythological), not just to the good guys (real or mythological). A roving biker gang, Apache raiders, and forest monsters, are not a totalitarian dictatorship.

    And "strong central state" applies to both the good guys and bad guys (real or mythological).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Maybe "centralized vs. decentralized" is a better way to frame it, not "single vs. multiple", to tie it into the weak vs. strong central state idea.

    Dark Age cultures have decentralized networks of enemies and helpers, real or mythological.

    Enlightened Perversion cultures have centralized cores of enemies and helpers, real or mythological.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anyway, back to NAMES. Looking into China, the Wiki entry on temple names says these became widespread during the Tang dynasty, so much so that the rulers of the Tang through the Yuan dynasties (i.e., the Dark Ages) are referred to by these temple names even today -- not their given personal or family / clan names.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_name

    Also, there were no regnal names during the Han or Qing dynasties (Classical and Neo-Classical eras), while there were regnal names during the Tang and Liao dynasties (Dark Ages).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnal_name#Sinosphere

    The good ol' Tang dynasty, just as reliable of a window into Dark Age China, as the good ol' Abbasid Caliphate or the good ol' Frankish Empire.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Japan is naturally on a different timeline from China, regarding epithets. Well into the Early Modern and Modern eras, the highest Japanese rulers have been known by epithets.

    The founder of the Tokugawa Shogunate circa 1600, Tokugawa Ieyasu, is also known by the epithet Tosho Daigongen, where Tosho means "Light of the East". And Daigongen can be broken down into Dai, meaning "Great", and "gongen" is a Japanese Buddhist / Shinto term for an incarnation of Buddha in the form of a Japanese kami (god / spirit).

    His epithet is popular enough that the shrines in his honor are known as Tosho-gu, i.e. "Tosho shrines" -- not mentioning his given name, clan name, etc., but his epithet "Light of the East".

    Toyotomi Hideyoshi was given the epithets "Kozaru" (Little Monkey) and "Saru" (Monkey) by his lord, Oda Nobunaga, based on his slender and hairy appearance.

    Nobunaga himself had many epithets in his own time, including Outsuke -- the (Big) Fool, based on his eccentric and unorthodox appearance and social behavior. He styled himself, perhaps sarcastically or not, as the "Demon King" (Maou).

    These are the three unifiers of Japan.

    Further still into the Modern era, with the Meiji Restoration, the Emperor adopted a new policy of one era-name per ruler. Previously, era-names could have been coined at will, with some emperors giving multiple names to subdivisions within their reign.

    Meiji means "Enlightened Rule" -- at first, the era-name for the post-Shogunate period. But by fixing the era-name for the entirety of the emperor's reign, he would become posthumously identified with that same name, i.e. "the ruler during that period". Emperor Meiji's given name was Mutsushito -- Meiji is an epithet.

    Referring to Japanese rulers by their era-name epithet, not their given name or familial / clan name, continues right up to the present. The current emperor goes by his given name, Naruhito, but upon dying he will become posthumously honored as Emperor Reiwa -- "Reiwa" being the era-name of his reign.

    Weeb fans of '70s and '80s Japanese culture already know the term "Showa" for that era, and its usage as an epithet for the emperor who reigned during that time, whose given name was Hirohito (which he's commonly known by outside of Japan, as we don't follow Japanese naming conventions). But this practice goes back to Matsushito / Meiji in the mid-1800s, and is another clear sign of Japan's Dark Age culture and distinctiveness from mainland Asian cultures, as China and the rest of the "Sinosphere" have stopped using era names, let alone turning them into epithets, a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  25. We could easily adopt the Japanese practice in America, since we're also Dark Age. E.g., referring to FDR as "the New Deal President", or JFK as "the New Frontier President", or LBJ as "the Great Society President".

    Those were slogans chosen to describe their aspirations for their reign, as it began, and then the entirety of their reign became known by these terms. So why not just call them "the Great Society President" etc.? It would be totally natural to Americans, and we already do so informally.

    ReplyDelete
  26. As for the New World, our meta-ethnic nemeses were known by descriptive physical epithets rather than given or familial / clan names -- Sitting Bull, Red Cloud, etc. And even in fictional stories of Americans joining the Indians, we receive similar epithets -- Dances with Wolves.

    Sitting Bull was an epithet bestowed upon him by his father after their participation in a raiding party (to rustle horses from the Crow tribe), as part of his rite of passage into manhood and warrior-dom.

    Nomad-dominant cultures can't get enough of their descriptive epithets.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pro wrestlers uphold this noble savage tradition in American culture -- George "the Animal" Steele, "Rowdy" Roddy Pipper, Jake "the Snake" Roberts, and so on.

    Very similar to Japanese vtubers, who also practice kayfabe for their audience. As mentioned above, their names do not translate into "given name + familial / clan name," but to something like Marine the Treasure-Bell, and Korone the Doggy-God, just like pro wrestlers. ^_^

    This is crucial, to show that it's not just monarchs and rulers, but entertainers within folk culture who take on epithets.

    And common people as well -- my Aunt, who went to high school in the early 1960s, said everyone at her school was called by an epithet rather than their given or family name. And just like in the Euro Dark Age, based on some salient quality they had -- "Bucky" for someone with buck teeth, "Fats" for a fat guy, and so on.

    My best friend in high school, in the '90s, was given the epithet "Ogre" by his football teammates (on account of being large and hairy, even as a freshman), and that epithet spread somewhat into the general school population as well.

    Here's a post on the extensive usage of epithets for English lords in the Domesday Book, of the 11th century following the Norman Conquest. Alwy Beetle-beard, Ernwine Cat's-nose, etc.:

    https://thijsporck.com/2017/01/02/anglo-saxon-bynames/

    This shows that it is every tier of the societal pyramid, from king to lord to commoner, that receives epithets during a Dark Age culture. That's important for deciding among competing theories about the reasons behind epithets being common in weak central state societies, and unpopular in strong central state societies.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Pirates are also known primarily by epithets -- Blackbeard, Bluebeard, Peg-Leg, etc. Even if they're from a strong central state society (like Early Modern Britain), they're a refuge for the vanishing minority of wild nomadic spirits, and they adopt the same Dark Age naming conventions, all the better to mark themselves as rebels and outcasts from their Enlightened Perversion society that snickers at such barbaric behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Errata: Mutsuhito, not Mutsushito. And al-Muqtadir was Abbasid, not Fatimid. The Fatimids, as fellow Dark Age people (10th to 12th centuries), were all known by epithets of the form "the ____" (see the column "regnal name"):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fatimid_caliphs

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm so Dark Age, I even call my cat by epithets. Sometimes I do use his "given" name, but usually it's "(the) Little Big Guy" or "(the) Tiger-Bear", very physical epithets. ^_^

    He's a really big cat, although more of a gentle giant / teddy-bear, very social, friendly, affectionate, respectful, polite, talkative, and playful. So "(the) Tiger-Bear" is also a bit humorous, like calling a tall guy "Tiny" -- he's not an intimidating ferocious beast. He sure looks like he should be, though!

    Sometimes I combine both, "Little Big [Given Name]". But usually just an epithet.

    I wonder if that confuses him -- it doesn't seem to. He's a very socially intelligent cat, so he must understand that I'm using multiple names to refer to a single individual, and that they must be terms of endearment, etc.

    Awww, he's so smart. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sophia is a Byzantine name, another Dark Age revival in America. Wiki says it's first recorded in the 4th C, perhaps referring to Saint Sophia, a martyr during the Diocletian persecution.

    It's become very popular here, reaching the #1 spot for 2011 - 2013 births. But even earlier on it was popular -- Sophia ranked #197, and Sophie ranked #163, among 1900 births.

    Most of the famous Sophia's are from the Dark Ages, with a later group of them in the Early Modern period -- but only within the royal House of Hanover. In Spain, for example, the two royal Sofia's were born in 1938 and 2007.

    Always worth remembering that "Greek" doesn't necessarily mean Hellenic / Classical / pederastic satirists. It could represent the Byzantine era -- which it does in this case.

    We might think of "philosophy" when it comes to words with the Greek word for "wisdom" -- but we should really think of the Hagia Sophia cathedral ("Holy Wisdom"), the masterpiece of Byzantine architecture.

    Dark Age people can still appreciate "wisdom," just not in the autistic, analytical, nitpicking, verbal games, clever-silly way that people do in eras of Enlightened Perversion. Wisdom can be holy, supernatural, intuitive, spiritual -- as well as folk wisdom. Not bookish wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Rhyme-mates Chloe and Zoe are both recently super popular in America, and both are Greek -- but what kind of Greek?

    Chloe seems more Classical -- an epithet of Demeter, an Olympian goddess, who were worshiped beginning in the mid-1st millennium BC. Also the heroine in the 2nd-century AD Greek novel, Daphnis and Chloe.

    No famous real-life Chloes during the Bronze Age, Classical Age, Dark Ages, Early Modern, or Modern ages, though. Just some characters from the Classical Age.

    It was in the top 400 baby girl names in the late 1800s in America, declined during the first half of the 20th C, and even fell out of the top 2000 altogether during the '60s, before beginning to rise during the '80s and peaking around 2010, remaining popular even today, though.

    Zoe is a Dark Age name -- the earliest mythological example is the daughter of the Phyrigian King Midas, supposedly from the 2nd millennium BC (before the Trojan War). There's one real-life example from the Classical era -- a saint / martyr who died in 127 AD. Then there's another saint-martyr from the late 3rd C, around the transition to the Dark Ages.

    The two highest-profile real-life Zoes were from the Dark Ages -- the Byzantine Empresses Zoe Karbonopsina (who, in true Dark Age fashion, was known by a physical epithet, meaning "with the coal-black eyes" -- oooh baby), and Zoe Porphyrogenita, both from the 10th C.

    Then a later outlier, still Byzantine but from its very end-times -- the Grand Princess of Moscow (married to Ivan III) was born Zoe Palaiologina, and in true America-anticipating fashion, became known by the name Sophia! She was born around 1455.

    The only other notable historical Zoe is Zoe Talon, countess of Cayla, confidante of French King Louis XVIII, and born in 1785, during the Gothic revival / Romantic period.

    Zoe was already in the top 400 baby girls names in America by the late 1800s, along with Chloe. It followed the same decline during the first half of the 20th C, then began rising like crazy (now also including the spelling variant Zoey), and peaked around 2010 as well.

    The crucial point is that Chloe and Zoe used to be about equally popular, with Chloe enjoying a slight edge, from the 1800s through the 1950s. But then Chloe dropped out of the top 2000 altogether in the '60s, while Zoe hung on. And when both started soaring after that low-point, their relative popularity flipped, with Zoe enjoying a solid lead and reaching a higher maximum (counting both spelling variants).

    So over the course of American ethnogenesis, we came to treat Zoe as the foundational member of that rhyming class, and Chloe as the imitator / spin-off member. Zoe just resonates better with our Dark Age sensibilities, and it does in fact have more of a Dark Age origin than Chloe.

    Uncanny how good ordinary mothers are at sniffing all of these things out, without any bookish instruction on these facts. They just knew, "We're American -- Zoe is more fitting than Chloe".

    ReplyDelete
  33. What about super popular Mia? Turns out she's part of a rhyming class that began with Leah, which later took on spelling variants Lea and, among Zoomers, Lia (including the nickname of an American vtuber, whose full stage name is Rinkou Ashelia).

    Other popular members include Bria and Aaliyah / Alia (including the hit R&B singer and actress who died tragically young). Less popular ones include Rhea, Tia, Diya, Kia, Gia, Sia, and Zia.

    Most of the class were spawned and took off with Millennial and Zoomer births, but Mia started rising earlier, in the '60s -- before Mia Farrow was popular, she was just in the right place at the right time (and was born Maria, with her nickname being Mia -- not born as Mia).

    Leah is the founding member of this class, though, nearly cracking the top 200 baby girl names in America during the late 1800s (along with the minor spelling variant Lea), before falling off through the mid-20th C. But Leah began rising during the '50s and '60s -- right at the same time that Mia began rising. But Leah was far more popular back then, and Mia was piggybacking off of Leah. Mia wouldn't overtake Leah until the 2000s.

    Leah is not a Biblical or Christian name, although it is a false cognate with one of the wives of Jacob. There were no fictional or real Leahs of any note before late 19th-century America, with a handful of examples around that time in our sphere of influence (Canada, Australia, Britain, etc.).

    True Biblical and Christian names show up at some point before 1800s America -- but Leah did not. And to be Christian, they must show up among non-Jews as well. The supposed example of a Polish Jewish writer born in 1680, of the surname Horowitz, was not born a Leah -- but as Sarah Rebecca Rachel Leah Horowitz.

    Even among Jews, the earliest examples are born in the late 1800s in Europe and its offshoots, possibly as part of the Zionist revival of the Hebrew language, returning to Israel, etc. -- maybe also using Leah as a given name for the first time since the days of Jacob's wife herself.

    The earliest notable woman who was born Leah, and not Jewish, is Leah Rhodes (born Leah Margaret Montgomery), an American costume designer born in 1902. The next such person is also American, Leyah / Leah Chase, a popularizer of Creole cooking in print and TV, born 1923. Perhaps no accident that both are from west of the Mississippi River (Texas and Louisiana).

    No further notable such examples until the '50s and '60s, when it began taking off.

    As for Lea, there is a lone example from the good ol' Dark Ages -- Saint Lea, from Rome, not Jewish. Wiki says her name derives from Old Testament Leah -- but I doubt that. Saint Lea is only known from accounts by her close friend St. Jerome, who compiled the Vulgate Bible. In Latin, he transliterates Leah, from the book of Genesis, as "Lia" -- not "Lea". Back in the 4th century, Lea must have had a different origin, and not a Jewish one at that.

    There's a Finnish Lea (Piltti) born in 1904, but she's the only one from her nation ever, so probably a one-off. Also, Lea was in the top 1000 names in America by the late 1800s.

    None of the future members of this rhyming class have strong Jewish, Christian, or any religious connotations -- so it's just another example of sound patterns mattering more than semantics. It sounded new, and plausibly American, so let's run with it, regardless of its connotations.

    At most, you could say the silent "h" at the end of the more common spelling variant reflects a consideration for Old Testament-ish spellings, but that's not due to our being Jewish or Christian as a nation -- but due to our desire to separate our American identity from Classical Euro roots. So if anything, it's pseudo-Saharo-Arabian or pseudo-Semitic, much like the names coined by Joseph Smith for the Book of Mormon (Lehi, Moroni, Lamanite, etc.), the foundational text of America's contribution to global religions, Mormonism.

    ReplyDelete
  34. There's also Nia / Niah / Neeya, among the somewhat popular "-ia" names. That fills out the rest of the minimal sound pairs -- Mia and the other initial nasal, Nia. Tia / Diya, Sia / Zia, Leah / Rhea, Gia / Chia? LOL, not an example due to sounding like the novelty plant / toy Chia Pet.

    How about Priya, to match Bria? It's there among Indian-Americans, but has yet to enter wider usage -- maybe due to libtards worrying about "cultural appropriation" (yes, there's a reddit post on that exact question).

    Stay tuned, lots more tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Up next is a near-rhyming class, Pamela, Tamara, and Angela. Pamela was first, becoming popular in Britain before America by a couple decades, in the early-mid 20th C. It peaked in America in the '50s.

    But it spawned near-rhyme-mates Tamara and Angela, which are more Gen X, and did not spread so broadly in Britain. The Brits liked the single name Pamela, whereas in America it became a template for a broader phenomenon of names.

    They're similar in being 3 syllables, identical vowels, stress on the first, last consonant is a liquid, and the stressed syllable ends with a nasal consonant.

    And they truncate nicely into nicknames -- Pam, Tam / Tammy, Angie / Ange (like "anj").

    None of these names were popular, or even really existed in English, before the 20th C.

    Pamela was coined by English Renaissance poet Sir Philip Sidney, for a character in a work set in Ancient Greece (Arcadia). It's meant to sound Greek-ish and exotic to English ears. Inspired by Arcadia, the Early Modern novelist Richardson used Pamela as the name for a novel. And yet -- no real-life examples, just a few character names.

    Tamara existed in some Eastern Euro languages, after Queen Tamar of Georgia, a 12th-C Queen of Georgia who protected Eastern Christianity against the rise of Islam in the Caucasus. But it didn't exist in Western Europe or its off-shoots, and is therefore just a false cognate with the 20th-century American name. The Georgian queen herself is named after an Old Testament woman, since her clan claimed to be descended from the Biblical King David.

    We can tell it's a false cognate since several of the societies use Tamar, without the final feminine-sounding "a", not to mention the stress pattern is different for many of those with the final "a" -- ta-MAR-a, rather than American TAM-a-ra.

    But to American ears, it sounds exotic and vaguely Mediterranean or pseudo-Semitic, so we like it -- it lets us distinguish ourselves from our British, French, and Dutch roots.

    Angela only existed in Italy, from the Dark Ages through Modern times, although seemingly only among saints and nuns and religious officials. In any case, it does not have a religious or Christian connotation in America, because its stressed vowel is different -- in "Angel" the first vowel rhymes with "pay", whereas in "Angela" it rhymes with "pan".

    It's just another exotic-sounding name that lets us sound non-British.

    In America, it's popular enough to have spread outside the Italian-American group, if it even began with them. The most iconic Angela, and one of the most iconic Gen X-ers (who own the name), has quite the WASP-y surname -- Angela Chase, the protag of My So-Called Life.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Sarah, Tara, Cara, Clara, and Farrah. Sarah is another super popular non-Biblical / non-Christian name. If it were a popular Old Testament or Christian name, it would have thrived somewhere and sometime before the founding of America. But it did not.

    There were a few Sarahs born in the mid-17th C in England -- Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, and a writer Sarah Fyge Egerton.

    But most of the early famous Sarahs are American women born in the 1700s, when / where it was a common name -- the daughter of Benjamin Franklin (who had a given name ahead of its time as well), the stepmother of Abraham Lincoln (ditto), the early mystic Sarah Edwards, the portrait artist Sarah Goodridge, the abolitionist Sarah Moore Grimke, writer and editor Sarah Josepha Hale (who wrote the standard nursery rhyme "Mary Had a Little Lamb"), and so on and so on and so on.

    And we had a mid-17th-century-born Sarah here as well -- Sarah Good, executed during the Salem Witch Trials.

    Sarah has never been an uncommon name in America, and despite a decline during the first half of the 20th C, it took off like a rocket during the '60s and '70s, peaking in the '80s, before coming down afterward, although still in the top 100 today.

    It's had a minor spelling variant, Sara, the whole time.

    But wait, there's more -- its skyrocketing popularity was piggybacking on another rhyming name, Tara.

    Tara (with minor variant Tarah) is another purely New World creation -- nobody had it before 20th-century America. It first broke into the top 2000 in the 1940s, and climbed steadily during the '50s and '60s, when Sarah / Sara was still languishing in its low-point. It also peaked earlier, in the '70s, than Sarah / Sara did (in the '80s).

    Sarah was always more common than Tara, but it got new life breathed into it by the sudden exciting appearance of Tara.

    Cara was another not-so-popular rhyming name that was in the top 1000 to 2000 spots back to 1880, but never broke out until a rise beginning in the '50s and '60s, before peaking near the #200 spot in the '80s. Not as popular as the other two, but following a similar evolution.

    Clara was actually more popular than even Sarah from the 1880s to the 1920s, though following the same decline over that period. For some reason, it didn't piggyback on the late Boomer / Gen X trends of Sarah, Tara, and Cara -- maybe it sounded too Victorian? IDK. But like all things Victorian, it's enjoyed a steady rise over the past few decades, while Sarah, Tara, and Cara have been falling. It's currently around the #100 spot, more or less tied with Sarah again.

    Nobody was named Clara before 1800s America, where / when it became common. Before then in the English and French-speaking worlds, it was Cla(i)r(e). The Dark Age, 13th-century saint who is the first with the name, was not Clara but Chiara, without the "l".

    Maybe Clara sounds too English and French -- we already know of the similar name Clair(e), so it sounds like we just tacked on a feminine "a" at the end, while hardly disguising its post-Dark Age Western Euro roots. And so, not as suitable for a New World identity, and that's why it gradually lost out to Sarah / Sara, and the others that were popular in the mid-to-late 20th C.

    Farrah / Farah was never as popular as its rhyme-mates, but it did get a slight bump in the wake of Farrah Fawcett's iconic face, body, and name, during the 1970s, and then another bump after Farrah Abraham was cast for the hit MTV show 16 and Pregnant in the late 2000s. One of the rare examples of pop culture influencing names -- but again, hardly at all. It failed to crack the top 500 during either of its heydays. And it had to rely on rhyming with other popular names like Sarah, Tara, Cara, and Clara.

    Even Farrah Fawcett was not a Farrah -- she was born Mary, and Farrah was a nickname given by her mother.

    From the early adoption of an actually Semitic name that had never been used by Gentiles before, to a whole rhyming class of pure New World coinages, anything to distinguish ourselves as an exotic non-British and even non-Western culture.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dang, I guess we'll have to get to Alvin, Simon, and Theodore (and Theodora) later.

    But for one final laugh for now, see Wiki's page on Cara (given name). It's an exercise in desperately groping around for a meaning to explain the name, rather than just accepting it as a sequence of sounds with no meaning in particular -- aside from "the individual bearing such a name".

    It's Irish, no wait, Welsh, no wait, German, no wait, Scandinavian, no wait, Japanese, no wait, Greek, no wait, Turkish, no wait, all Romance languages, no wait -- Ancient Egyptian!

    Get a clue, people. Names don't have to mean anything, and the less they mean, the more desperately the midwits insist that they do, with more meanings than you can shake a stick at.

    If the sounds "KA-ra" or "CARE-uh" mean so much to so many ethnic groups -- why are 99% of Cara's Americans, and born after 1950 at that?

    It's just another sound sequence that lets us be non-British, non-Western, even non-European or non-Olde Worlde.

    Ditto for Tara -- not an Irish name. No Irish person went by that name before copying Americans from the mid-20th C onward. It's a distinctly New World sounding name, that's why we adopted it. Whether it has false cognates in various languages around the world -- none of whose speakers ever made it a name, let alone a common one -- is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Alvin, Simon, Theodore -- we're the chipmunks! Those names are more American than we knew, and so are Chip and Dale, but that's another story (and something I don't need to go into, pretty obvious).

    Alvin shows the lengths we were willing to go to, to resurrect the Dark Age of Europe. It sounds like it's from the same culture as Alfred and Albert -- presumably the "vin" would've been something more Welsh-y and Medieval like "wyn", Alwyn. How very authentically Arthurian!

    But no, we Americans made it up! There's no such name in history! Not until 19th-century America, and as with our other distinctive names, it spread well before our integrative civil war. Names really are the only exception to that rule.

    The earliest notable Alvin is a businessman from the Boston Brahmin Adams family (which included the 2nd president, John Adams), who was born in 1804. As much as the East Coast elites like to LARP as Euros, they never did stick with their names, and were eager to distinguish themselves as a new cultural unit, just as much as their Puritan neighbors did with their virtue names.

    They tried to uphold Western Civ in various other ways, but they at least made it clear that they were not identical to any group of Euros -- their name-shibboleths told others that they were a new special unit, Americans, but that they swore to do their best to champion Christian values, uphold Western Civ, and all that other Euro-LARP stuff.

    If they had stuck with British names, then there would have been no baton to pass to the American elites. And no reason to declare independence from Britain.

    Speaking of which, note that there are no notable Alvins from Canada, especially early on. They did not want to break free from Britain, they wanted to be British people with a British culture, just in a new location. They did not want to create a new culture -- which is why, after finally relenting, Canadians have always copied Americans and not the other way around. They didn't face the meta-ethnic nemesis of Indian raiders, we did. That forged us into a new people, not them.

    But it wasn't just an East Coast elite name -- Alvin Saunders, who was born in Kentucky, became the Governor of the Nebraska Territory, and ultimately its first Senator, way out West. He was born in 1817.

    By the 1880s, the name had already reached #112 among baby boys names, and kept rising toward its peak in the 1920s, when it hit #71. It has declined ever since then, and yet it remains well within the top 1000 (at #770) even today.

    No doubt that's helped out by its adherence to Millennial and Zoomer male name phonotactics -- 2 syllables, stress on the first, second syllable is a weak unstressed vowel (usually schwa or short "i"), followed by "n" -- Devin, Dylan, Mason, Jackson, etc.

    But Americans will never forget Alvin from Alvin and the Chipmunks, since "they" recorded an iconic Midcentury novelty Christmas song ("Christmas Don't Be Late"), which guarantees cultural immortality in America, where we were desperate to come up with new non-Euro Christmas songs.

    Not just rehashing original Dark Age names, we'll coin new ones too -- anything to bring the Arthurian world back to real, dynamic, exciting, breathing life! They must've come up with their own novel names back then, right? Well, why wouldn't Alvin have been one of them? They shouldn't be fossilized, but kept going as though still full of creative, inspired potential!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Alva, the middle name of Thomas Edison (born in the mid-1800s), was part of the same pseudo / neo-Arthurian project as Alvin, but it didn't get quite as high -- within the top 200 (and it had a minor spelling variant, Alvah).

    After plateau-ing in the 1880s and '90s, it fell off hard and never recovered. It left the top 2000 altogether in the 1980s and has stayed obscure.

    This emphasizes the importance of phonology, not semantics, in the evolution of names -- Alva(h) has a more feminine-sounding ending than Alvin, and regardless of that, also failed to adhere to the Millennial / Zoomer male name pattern, which requires an "n" at the end. Or in a pinch, an "r" -- Asher, Archer, Porter, etc.

    If you could convince Millennial and soon Zoomer parents that "Alver" is a legit name, they would totally run with it, just as they're still keeping Alvin alive, but not Alva(h).

    (The related Alvaro, from Spanish, violates the requirement of having a final consonant, and again, libtards are too worried about cultural appropriation to go with a Spanish name anyway.)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Oh God, Dahmer could totally become an American boy's name!

    "How many times have I told you, Dahmer? Quit playing with your food!"

    ReplyDelete
  41. Simon is a Dark Age name among Gentiles (among Jews there are lots of examples from the Classical era). The first martyrs by that name are from the 4th and 5th centuries, and the first leader by that name was Simeon the Great, tsar of the Bulgarian Empire, who was born in the 860s. Several Hungarians of note from the early 2nd millennium as well.

    And some Dark Age Englishmen -- the 11th / 12th-C Simon of Worcester (Bishop), the 13th-C Simon de Montfort (leader of the barons against Henry III), the 12th / 13th-C Simon of Southwell (Treasurer of Lichfield Cathedral), and the Archbishop of Canterbury Simon Sudbury (born just a bit past the magical 1300 mark, in 1316).

    After that, there are no Simons until three colonial and New World figures -- Simon Bolivar, independence leader in South America (born 1783), Simon Cameron, American Senator from Pennsylvania and later Lincoln's Secretary of War (born 1799), and Simon van der Stel, Dutch Governor of Cape Colony who was born at sea in the Indian Ocean (in 1639).

    Despite the colonial / New World nature of the rebirth of a Dark Age name like Simon, it was the British who ran with it the furthest. Most notable Simons since the 20th C have been British, even though it hasn't disappeared from America (where it only reached the top 200 or 300 during its separate peaks in the 1880s and the 2010s, but didn't fall below the top 600 even at its low-point in the Midcentury).

    Definitely not as iconically American as Alvin, but still an interesting American -- and also, South American -- angle to its revival.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Alvin is part of a rhyming class with Calvin, and the far less popular and later derivative Malvin, all of which peaked in the 1920s.

    Calvin has staged a comeback during the 2010s, though, whereas Alvin is merely being held steady. Semantics likely do not matter, as usual, but phonotactics -- we like an initial consonant in our syllables, especially a stressed one, so Calvin fits better than Alvin, soundwise.

    This also shows that Calvin the given name has nothing to do with John Calvin, the Puritan / Reformed religious founder. The most famous Calvin in American history is Jewish and very not-religious -- Calvin Klein.

    Rather, Calvin was piggybacking on the popularity of the novel pseudo-Arthurian Alvin. Sound, not meaning. From the 1880s through their peaks in the '20s, Alvin was always more common than Calvin.

    The earliest Alvin of note was born in 1804, and the earliest Calvin of note was born around the same time, in 1815 -- Calvin Galusha Coolidge, who served in the Vermont House of Representatives, whose son also served in the Vermont General Assembly, and whose grandson became President -- John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. (Although he went by Cal(vin), he was born John.)

    In true Dark Age fashion, he's known by a physical epithet -- Silent Cal. There were no other Calvin presidents, nor were there realistically going to be any more. So there was no need to distinguish this Calvin from other Calvins. That's not what epithets do -- they're not functional and efficiency-maximizing. They're spontaneous and humanizing and playful and freely chosen, outside what is provided by formulas, schemas, and algorithms.

    Calvin Galusha's father was also born a Calvin (in 1780), though he's not noteworthy.

    The point being, both names seem to have been created around the same time and place -- circa 1800 in America.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Francis has changed the hard "k" into a sibilant "s", then added a high-front vowel (connoting things that are small, weak), and another "s" after it."

    I wonder if that's a more general linguistic trend in Renaissance era European languages, to soften hard consonants.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Justin is another example of a name which appeared in the Dark Ages Byzantine Empire, and then disappeared for over a thousand years before reappearing in the Anglosphere in the 20th century:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_(name)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Brian is a Celtic name from the British Isles commonly used during the Dark Ages (most notably Brian Boru who was High King of Ireland in the 1000s), then disappeared after the Dark Ages ended until Americans picked it up in the 20th century again:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ryan supposedly comes from Old Irish "Rian" but there are no notable Irish figures with either name until the 20th century where the number of Irish Ryans/Rians are swamped by the number of American Ryans/Rians:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_(given_name)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rian

    ReplyDelete
  47. Kevin is another name which only became widely used in the 1950s in the USA before spreading to the rest of the American empire.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin

    ReplyDelete
  48. About the similarities between Barack and Brock, there's this "Brock Obama" meme from the late 2000s and early 2010s where people photoshopped Brock the Pokemon Trainer's head into pictures of Barack Obama:

    https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/brock-obama

    ReplyDelete
  49. Lyman is part of a rhyming pair with Simon, and is an early and distinctive American name. It looks like Lyman came first -- a wholly new American creation, unknown before 1700 anywhere. One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a Lyman (Hall), born way back in 1724, well before the notable Simons.

    Nor was he alone -- other 18th-century notable births are Lyman Walker, Lyman Wight, and Lyman Beecher (Presbyterian clergyman, temperance movement leader, and father of abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe -- very American).

    All Lymans are American, or in a few cases, Canadian.

    Given how common it is in American religious contexts -- lots of the early Mormon leaders (in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) -- I consider this a pseudo-Saharo-Arabian, and specifically pseudo-Semitic name. Sounds Biblical, from the Bronze Age, not the Classical period when Jews had become more sedentarized and Hellenized. A nomadic Hebrew name.

    It has 3 consonants that make a good Semitic word, L-M-N, and speaking of Mormons, one of their pseudo-Semitic proper names is the Lamanites, an ethnic group in the Book of Mormon who settled in the ancient Americas (akin to Native New Worlders, though bearing a very Semitic-sounding name). Lyman and Laman have the same tri-consonantal root, and even share one of their vowels, and are stressed the same way.

    Lyman was never as popular as Simon, and peaked at the same time, in the early 20th C, never to return. But it served its purpose -- to uncouple America from Europe and its Classical eras especially. Anything that sounded like a Bronze Age Semitic name was fit for the job -- Lyman, it is.

    See also, Hiram, a 10th-century BC Phoenician king, who left his mark in American names as well. They don't have to even been Jewish or Hebrew -- as long as they sound like they're from the non-Euro part of the Old World, and from before 700 BC, they'll do!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Uber-American names David and Michael are also from the Bronze Age of Semitic cultures, not their Classical / Hellenized era. They became popular with non-Jews during the Dark Ages, especially with Byzantine emperors and those in their orbit, like the Bulgarian Empire and the Caucasus nation of Georgia. And from there, to Russia.

    They fell out of favor after the Dark Ages, but were revived like crazy by Modern Americans, to the point where they're some of the most popular-ever names here.

    Mikhail also became revived by Russians in the 19th C -- their version of being sick and tired of so much rational, Neoclassical order and structure. Let's revive the name that no leader of an Eastern Orthodox country has used since the Byzantine and Old Church Slavonic era!

    I can flesh out the specifics of these evolutions later, just wanted to put a synopsis here while speaking of Bronze Age Semitic names.

    David was not a Rabbi, Pharisee, or Talmudist -- he was a monster-battling hero! Goliath was a menacing giant, from the nomadic times when real monsters used to roam the earth. Good luck finding such a worthy fuckin' adversary in the Hellenized world that wrote down the books of the Jewish Bible.

    But back around 1000 BC, when David was alive, there were nomadic monstrous threats wandering all over the place. Leviathan, the whale that swallowed Jonah, burning bushes -- it was a whole different world, full of magic, mystery, and fantastical creatures, with no centralized Bad Guy in Chief who commanded them all.

    It was like the Greek Dark Ages / Heroic Age, or Modern Japanese folklore and mythology, or American folklore and mythology -- there's no single Devil / Satan at the top of a hierarchical army of beasts. They're all out there, doing their own thing, much like Dark Age bestiaries in Europe, when the Devil was an impotent joke of a figure. He wouldn't become a nearly all-powerful Villain-in-Chief until after the Dark Ages, when societies started centralizing again -- Dante, Milton, the Witch Trials (all witchcraft being supervised and commanded by the Devil himself, of course).

    In the weak central state society of America, the Bronze Age Semitic folklore and mythology resonates a lot more with us. David and Goliath, Theseus and the Minotaur -- something with a proper monster in it!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Amy and the variant Aimee (no accent) are other names that became popular with the American Empire, due to a Broadway musical called Where's Charley? from 1948:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aim%C3%A9e

    ReplyDelete
  52. It's really amazing to think that Glorious Nippon not only invented a new iconic monster, but saw the whole world adopt him into their own bestiaries, and even spawned a productive suffix for a monster -- "-zilla", after Godzilla, King of Monsters.

    Sorry China, Korea, and Southeast Asia -- only one "Asian" nation is cool enough to do that, and it's the one that's in a Dark Age of its cycle, which hasn't been seen on the mainland of Asia since the Mongols (at the very end).

    I'll bet there's all kinds of badass monster movies that could be made from Chinese mythology of the Tang and Song dynasties, not to mention the nomadic menaces themselves, like the Liao and Yuan dynasties.

    However, China just isn't in the right cultural phase to channel that spirit, to get into the Dark Age mindset. It would be better of Japan were the interpreter of Dark Age China to the modern world -- which they have already done plenty of times, from anime to video games.

    They just get it more naturally! They also live in a weak-state society with feudalism and nomadic threats roaming around, until very recently, and still do -- albeit somewhat pacified by the American occupation.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Pop culture doesn't drive mass behavior. How many hit songs with a girl's name were there that were *not* followed by a rise in the name's popularity? They don't pick a name at random -- you'll never hear a some about Beulah in 2024.

    They pick one that's already trendy -- the culture creators are the ones riding on the coat-tails of mass behavior.

    In the case of Amy, it was a case of in the right place at the right time. The musical Where's Charley? debuted on Oct 11, 1948 -- too late to affect the figures for 1948.

    And yet Amy had already jumped 20 places in the ranking, landing at #311, when from '47 back through '30, it had been stuck around 325-330, and wouldn't budge upward.

    Maybe the writer of that musical had heard his friends naming their newborns Amy in '48, the first year that it ticked upward. Or maybe he had the same mindset of those mothers, figuring Amy was due to become a hit name.

    In any case, it was a coincidence, not causation.

    ReplyDelete
  54. A better example of the non-causative role of pop culture on mass behavior -- Maria. The most popular song from musicals is "Maria" AKA "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?" from The Sound of Music, which debuted in '59 and was adapted into a hit movie in '65.

    The lead female character in one of the most popular musicals, and then movie adaptation as well, is Maria from West Side Story, which debuted in '57 and was adapted to movies in '61.

    All these high-profile pop culture characters named Maria -- American mothers are sure to get brainwashed and send Maria through the ceiling during the '60s and after!

    Wrong! Maria *peaked* around the time of those musicals and movies, and declined during the '60s in their wake, falling off pretty hard after that. Nor was this downward trend reversed by Blondie's first hit song in many years, "Maria" from 1999.

    Maria had already been soaring for decades before The Sound of Music and West Side Story.

    Why Maria -- and later Mariah, Mariam, etc.? -- instead of Mary, which has been in steep decline more or less since the start of American history?

    Cuz Mary is too British and too Euro. Maria, Mariah, Mariam, Miriam -- those sound more Bronze Age Biblical, part of our imaginary Ancient Egyptian, Canaanite, and Mesopotamian roots. Mariah especially sounds like a pseudo-Semitic Biblical name, riffing on Hosiah, Obediah, and the like.

    Americans are not British, and do not want to be British. How much clearer can we make it? We'll name our daughters Mariah instead of Mary.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Now for Theodore, to wrap up the Chipmunk names. In the past 10-15 years, the name has exploded in popularity for American baby boy names, reaching all the way to the #10 spot for 2022.

    Yes -- Theodore, that name everyone associated with being a geek or whatever back in the '80s or '90s. Everything Victorian is hip again. It's last peak was in the 1900s, and declined for a full century.

    Theodore Huxtable was a popular character on one of the most popular TV shows of all time, The Cosby Show, in the '80s -- and yet the name kept sliding in popularity for over 20 years. Pop culture has no effect on mass behavior.

    Nor did the sitting super-popular president of the 1900s, Theodore Roosevelt, save the name during the following decade, when it began falling off.

    What brought Theodore into the American name-pool to begin with, though, regardless of whether it's during a rising or falling phase? Some names don't cycle at all because they're not part of our name-pool.

    There were a few Classical-era Theodores from Ancient Greece (Theodorus of Samos from the 6th C BC, and Theodorus of Byzantium from the 5th C BC).

    But most of them are from 300 AD and after -- it's a Dark Age name, championed and popularized by the Byzantine Empire. There were only 2 born after 1300, and none after 1400.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_(given_name)

    As for the post-Dark Age era, there are only a few examples from separate centuries and separate countries -- not reliable members of a culture's name-pool.

    The first notable Theodore who is part of a national tradition for the name is an American born in 1787 -- Theodore Frelinghuysen, of a long-established political clan in New Jersey. He was followed by notable 19th-C American births Theodore Parker (transcendentalist and Unitarian minister), Theodore Dreiser (novelist), Theodore Roosevelt (future president), among many many others. There's even a Theodore Lyman -- two highly distinctive American names in one person!

    Crucially, these people are from stodgy normie occupations -- politician, businessman, religious leader, etc. Not just offbeat artists, adventurers, and others whose non-conformist parents may have given then non-conformist names.

    And given the recent resurgence in the name's popularity, the vast majority of famous Theodores -- after the Dark Ages -- will continue to be American.

    The name is not "Greek" -- it is Byzantine. And it is not "Christian", since Europe remained Christian after 1300 yet threw away this name. It's a Dark Age name, whether Christian or otherwise, in Europe or the New World, whether the bearer speeks Medieval Greek or Modern American English.

    In America, it may get confused with another Dark Age name from the Germanic side of Europe -- Theodoric (as in the King of the Ostrogoths of the 5th and 6th centuries). But if Americans are tapping into that name, they are still channeling the Dark Ages of Europe all the same.

    From Jason to Theodore -- skipping right over all those Golden Age of Athens figures, whose names are very well known to us, but could not sound more out of place in a Dark Age culture like America.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Sandra, a purely American creation, was the #4 girls name in America for the 1940s. It appeared almost out of nowhere in the early 20th C, first climbing during the '20s and '30s. Even after declining for decades, it was still in the top 200 for Millennials.

    It has the exotic non-British sound, non-Roman sound, and vaguely Eastern Med sound, where our imaginary roots lie.

    I don't know if it's a shortened form of a Greek name -- it has a lot in common with other popular sound patterns of its time, like Debra / Deborah, Barbara (whose 2nd vowel is silent), etc. Two syllables, 1st stressed, final syllable is "r + schwa", stressed vowel is a front low vowel, stressed syllable has an initial consonant and one or more consonants in its coda.

    But if it Greek, it's short for Cassandra, not Alexandra. In English (American anyway), the "x" in Alexander and Alexandra is pronounced "gz" not "ks". Shortened forms of Alexander include Zander, but not Sander. Ditto for Alexandra shortening to Zandra, but not Sandra.

    The "ss" in Cassandra *is* pronounced as an "s", so that's at least possible.

    But I doubt either of these truncated origins -- because Sandra soared off the charts way before either of the longer names took off, and they were far less popular even then.

    Sandra had already peaked, in the '40s, before Cassandra and Alexandra started to rise in the '50s, and they wouldn't peak until the '90s. Interpreting Sandra as a truncated form assumes that the longer form is already common and well known -- but they were not.

    In any case, Cassandra, the only possible one, actually refers to a Dark Age Trojan, not a Classical-era Greek. Alexandra sounds too Classical and sophisticated -- not very American. Cassandra has a supernatural gift involving a kind of magic -- being able to see into the future, but being cursed by the gods to be unbelieved by everyone else. She's a psychic, not a philosopher, right up America's alley.

    But as I said, I doubt either inspiration -- it's a name unto itself, and has its own nickname form, Sandy. That doesn't carry over into Alexandra (which cannot be nicknamed Alexandy) or Cassandra (no nickname of Cassandy). I know AOC went by Sandy, but Alexandria in Spanish does have a "ks" sound, not "gz" as in English.

    It simply sounded vaguely Greek, from their Heroic / Mythological / Bronze Age past, not their Classical and sophisticated era. And importantly, it sounded like Barbara and Debra.

    Anything to not sound like a Neoclassical Brit.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Sandra, Debra, Barbara are very close to the Pamela, Tamara, Angela group, except the latter have 3 vowels, the middle of which breaks up what would be 2 adjacent consonants in the first group, at a syllable boundary.

    Perhaps in American English, a nasal followed by a liquid (or just "l") isn't a nice syllable-boundary pair. So stick in a vowel to break them up. Whereas a stop consonant like "d" or "b" followed by a liquid (or just "r") doesn't sound to bad, so no need to insert a vowel to break them up.

    More evidence that semantics are only tangentially involved here, and at a very abstract and collective level -- like "vaguely Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean", rather than "from the Greek, specifically meaning protector of men".

    ReplyDelete
  58. when you think about it and spell it out it becomes obvious. voiceless consonants are associated with weakness/faggotry because they can be produced even when speaking nasally/uptalking with only the air in the mouth. whereas clean voiced consonants require nice booming airflow from ones lungs/gut.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Amy is part of a rhyming class with Mamie and Jamie, all of which are distinctly American. Mamie came first, with mid-19th-C births among the notable ones, the earliest being Mamie Claflin (b. 1867), a temperance and women's sufferage leader (not a mercurial artist type).

    Mamie peaked sometime in the late 1800s, fell off at least since the 1890s, and never recovered.

    Amy we've already been over.

    Jamie, although not as popular as Amy at any point in time, is a unique American name, coming into existence sometime in the early 1900s, staying in the #900-1000 range through the '30s, then jumping off in the '40s -- *before* the jumping-off point for Amy, which was the '50s. Jamie peaked later than Amy, '80s vs. '70s. It reached the #34 spot for the '80s.

    So if anything, Amy's sudden skyrocketing has even less to do with pop culture, but riding the coat-tails of the brand-new name Jamie.

    ReplyDelete
  60. BTW, I'm not subtweeting anyone in this post or thread -- if you have one of these names, congratulations, so does everyone in the off-shoots of the British Empire!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Linda, Melinda, and Belinda are a rhyming class, and all are American creations. Linda came first, already in the top 300 baby girl names by the 1880s, although no notable examples from the Wiki page (many do not list their birth year in the list, though, and I'm not cliking on every one). It shot up during the '30s, peaked at #2 in the '40s, and fell off after that.

    Melinda and Belinda took off during the '40s, when Linda was at its peak, clearly piggybacking off of it. Melinda was more popular than Belinda, and peaked at at #91 in the' 70s, with Belinda peaking a bit earlier at #168 in the '60s.

    Just like Sandra spawning the elongated form Cassandra (which is therefore a false cognate with the mythological Trojan woman, but makes for a nice post-hoc rationalization), Linda spawned the elongated forms Melinda and Belinda, which sound highly similar to each other (voiced bilabial consonant, followed by schwa, in the unstressed first syllable).

    These are pure sound sequences, Me- and Be-, they have no semantic meaning as though they were a prefix. We can thus reject all spurious etymologies about Melinda deriving from the Greek words for dark or honey, Belinda having to do with Italian bella, or Linda having to do with Germanic lind or Iberian Romance linda, etc.

    Like the other quintessentially 20th-century American names, they derive from nothing, but sound as though they were exotic Eastern Mediterranean names from 1000 BC -- as part of our mission to separate ourselves from British names of the Early Modern period, since we're American, not British. We should be named accordingly, with the sounds in a name being a shibboleth (especially when the semantic content, such as it exists, is identical, like British Mary vs. American Maria, Mariah, Mariam, and Miriam).

    There's more than one way to alter a given sound sequence -- you can remove sounds, or you can add sounds. May be obvious, but everyone forgets, especially when one name sounds like the shortened nickname form of another. But as we see with Sandra -> Cassandra, and Linda -> Melinda and Belinda, names can be elaborated upon, not only pared down. And purely on the basis of sound, with the new additions meaning nothing as either supposed prefixes or suffixes.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Jeez, what a tangled web with Melanie, Melissa, Melinda, Beth, and Bethany! Gimme a sec, I'll figure it out...

    ReplyDelete
  63. Too many Europeans have the name "Caroline" so the Americans decide to modify it to "Carolyn" instead.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Melissa, Melanie, and Melinda all took off during the '40s, and were equally popular in that decade and the '50s. They all peaked in the '70s, with Melissa reaching #3, Melanie at #56, and Melinda at #91. They all fell off afterward, without recovering.

    Similar to a rhyming class, but with the same head instead of "tail". Call them a same-head class, I guess. With a wrinkle, though, in that Melissa and Melinda have an unstressed 1st syllable (2nd stressed), while Melanie is stressed on the 1st.

    This makes sense since Melinda is an elaboration of Linda, and when you add material, it shouldn't alter where the stress is -- just like in removing material, you remove the unstressed material.

    That implies that Melissa is also an elaborated form of a shorter base name. It could be the same "me-" added to Lissa -- that base name did not exist, but Lisa did, and was also taking off like a rocket in the '40s and '50s (reaching the #1 spot of the '60s). Lisa does have a slightly different vowel from the intended target of Lissa, ("ee" in Lisa vs. short "i" in Lissa), but they're both pronounced very near to each other, as high front unrounded vowels.

    Perhaps only "m-" is the addition, and the base name is Elissa / Elyssa, or related Elisa. But these were far less popular, albeit rising over the same period or perhaps later than Melissa and Lisa.

    Whether Lisa or Elissa is the target for the elaborated form Melissa, the base name reflects a desire to shift away from the uber-British name Elizabeth / Elisabeth. There are many ways to remove material from Elizabeth and still get a well-formed name -- Eliza, Beth, Liza, Liz, Elisa, Lisa, Eli, El, etc. More on Beth later.

    And in either case, Lisa and Elissa both have stress on the "l + high front vowel" syllable, allowing the elaborated form Melissa to go unstressed in the new 1st syllable.

    None of Melissa, Lisa, or Elissa were names before 20th-C America (notwisthanding the lone example of Lisa del Giocondo, the woman painted in the Mona Lisa). They're pure coinages. Even the one that sounds the most like an existing Euro name, Lisa, subtly altered the vowel and following consonant of its target in Elizabeth -- from short "i" to "ee", and devoicing the "z" into an "s".

    And for all I know, perhaps the early Lisas pronounced their names with a "z" instead of an "s", even less of a deviation from Elizabeth. Certainly the Lizas like Liza Minnelli used the same "z" as Elizabeth, although they deviated more in the vowel alteration, making it a diphthong whose second element was an "ee" as in Lisa.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Unfortunately, I don't think America's ever going to have national single-payer healthcare, because they're too much of a decentralized Dark Ages society to muster up the centralized state control needed for single-payer healthcare:

    https://akinokure.blogspot.com/2017/03/trump-for-single-payer-healthcare-by.html

    ReplyDelete
  66. Where does that leave Melanie? This cannot be an elaborated form like Melissa and Melinda, since the 1st syllable is stressed in Melanie. It's not an unstressed addition. And there is no base name to add "m(e)-" to -- Lanie, Lania, Elanie, Elania, etc., all with "a" as in "car", do not exist in English.

    If it were Melana, then perhaps an unstressed "me-" could be added to existing American name Lana. But that's not what's going on here, and besides "me" is stressed in Melanie, unlike the two elaborated names.

    And unlike Melissa and Melinda (for whom there are only 2 historical examples, an early Christian saint and her granddaughter, both from the early Dark Ages), there are several historical examples of Melania and Melanie, neither of which are elaborations, but fully formed names in themselves.

    So, Melanie seems to have been dragged along with super-popular Melissa and less popular Melinda, even though the stress pattern is different, and even though Melanie is not an elaborated form like the other two. Just due to being same-headed, apart from stress.

    This debunks yet another dum-dum theory about pop culture influencing mass behavior -- Wiki, citing who knows what dum-dums, claims that Melanie rose in popularity due to a main character in Gone With the Wind having that name. The book came out in '36, the movie in '39. The timing is right -- but yet again, that's just a coincidence.

    Why didn't any of the other characters' names skyrocket in popularity, like Scarlett or Rhett, the main duo? Cuz they couldn't participate in a broader phonotactic trend. Rhett has only recently skyrocketed among boys names, and that's after the earlier popularity of rhyme-mates Bret and Chet, which did not exist back in the '30s. Likewise, Scarlett has only skyrocketed recently due to the resurgence of rhyme-mate Charlotte (which has always been more popular than Scarlett).

    ReplyDelete
  67. This old blog post of yours might be worth traversing through:

    https://akinokure.blogspot.com/2013/01/when-else-did-everybodys-names-rhyme.html

    ReplyDelete
  68. I forgot about Melody / Melodie! This name also began rising during the '40s, peaked in the '60s (within the top 200), and fell off for awhile... before coming back to life starting in the 2000s!

    Why did Melody come back to life, but not Melissa, Melinda, or Melanie? Something to do with the semantic meaning? Of course not! All four names are same-headed, but only Melody has the final two syllables being "short 'i' + flap + 'ee'" -- putting it in the broad class of popular girls names that are of the form optional unstressed syllables, then stressed syllable, followed by that sequence above.

    E.g., Kennedy, Cassidy (with many variant spellings), Serenity, perhaps revived Puritan virtue names like Chastity, Purity, and Felicity, etc.

    Some Fox News Boomer could start a trend with Hannity as a girls name in this climate, while also piggybacking on the earlier popularity of Hanna(h).

    My hunch is that this class is a subtle alteration of the earlier popular name Emily, where the liquid "l" has been changed into a flap, and where any ol' stressed syllable can take the place of "Em-".

    In any event, they are all American coinages with no precedents or traditions in the name-pools of other cultures.

    And they are, as always, based on phonology, not semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  69. More evidence in favor of the "-ity" names stemming from Emily, their stressed vowels tend to be low front vowels, as in "Em-". That's what keeps Purity from being as likely to come back, compared to Chastity. Felicity has a front vowel, although a high one.

    So, most important for that stressed vowel to be front, and better if it's low, like "Em-".

    ReplyDelete
  70. Not surprisingly, there are no "vice names" to counteract the virtue names, since we're a Dark Purity culture, not one of Enlightened Perversion.

    I was trying to think of rhyme-mates for Melanie, and the only word it rhymes with is Felony. Sounds more like a Suicide Girls pseudonym, not one that could ever take off in the general population.

    And Depravity could never join the "[BLANK]-ity" class, unlike Chastity, even though it has the same stressed vowel.

    ReplyDelete
  71. On your other blog you wrote a piece on when elite whites start obsessing over blacks:

    https://akinokure2.blogspot.com/2009/09/brief-when-did-elite-whites-start.html

    And on there the data showed they started doing that in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.

    And that was around the time America's empire was reaching its peak power, and it was time for America's elites to start integrating all its ethnic groups into the American empire, no more white nationalism treating blacks as not American, they need to now be integrated into American society as Americans, and they won't ever willingly integrate into American society if the white elites don't care about black culture and blacks. So hence why America's elite whites started obsessing with blacks.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Finally, Beth and Bethany. Beth came first, already in existence though not famous in the 19th C, in America only, naturally. It steadily rose during the early 20th C, then really took off in the '40s, peaking at #67 in the '60s, a similar timeline as those discussed earlier.

    Bethany was always far less common than Beth, and began rising later, in the '50s, then peaking later as well (at #100 in the '80s). Both fell off and never recovered.

    This makes Bethany an elaboration of Beth -- not Beth a shortened form of Bethany.

    Where did its extra material "-any" come from? Why, from Melanie! And also from the far more popular name Tiffany, which peaked at #11 in the '80s, whose nickname is Tiff.

    This means it's completely coincidental and spurious that Bethany is also the name of a place -- but not a person -- in the New Testament. It was not adopted into the American name-pool as Bethany, but as an elaboration of Beth, with the new tail borrowed from existing popular names like Tiffany and Melanie (and maybe others I'm not remembering off the top of my head).

    Where did Beth come from? Well, the same place that Lisa and Liza and Elissa did -- by trying to Americanize the uber-British name Elizabeth. Beth was already in use as a nickname for Elizabeth, so why not use it as a given name in its own right? It'll make us sound less British, especially less "post-Dark Age British".

    Elizabeth, although "Biblical" in inspiration, seems to be unattested in Bronze Age, Classical, or Dark Age eras, especially among non-Jews. There are only a handful of late Dark Age saints named Elizabeth -- almost all of the examples are from after 1300.

    Somehow we neo-Dark Age Americans could sense this, and rejected it, desperate to alter it into a more American-sounding form. And even that was not enough -- better to elaborate upon it, as in Melissa or Bethany, so that we can distance ourselves even further from the Euros of the Enlightened Perversion era, and sound more distinctly American.

    Another reason to reject the Semitic and Biblical origin of Bethany is that the "Beth" in "Bethany" ends in a feminine h/t (taa marbuuta in Arabic, don't know what it's called in Hebrew). Meaning "house". But in "Beth" that stems from "Elizabeth," does not originally end in that letter, but the exotic ayin -- Elisheva, as transliterated into Roman letters, but having an ayin at the end in Hebrew, not the feminine h/t letter.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The stressed vowel in Melanie, Tiffany, and Bethany are all front, and 2 of 3 are low as well. Same pattern as Emily and the ones it inspired in the 2000s and after.

    Only subtle differences are that the unstressed middle vowel is schwa vs. short "i", though still a bit close to each other. And the last consonant is a nasal "n" instead of liquid "l", though still voiced and high up on the sonority hierarchy, a common substitution in linguistic change. The final vowel is the same, "ee".

    Looks like we've (I've) found a much broader class of names that all these belong to. And all having to do with phonology, not semantics!

    The only role for meaning is in the vague connotations or suggestions of their ethnic background -- real or imaginary. They sound like Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean names, where we place our imaginary ancient roots -- not Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  74. As for Emily, BTW, it's not a Classical name, despite claims it comes from Roman family name Aemilius.

    In fact, there's only one notable Dark Age figure, Emmelia of Caesarea, born circa 300 AD, whose son was Basil of Caesarea, a leading figure in early Christianity. They were Byzantine.

    There are no notable Emily's born after her until circa 1800, and even then it seems to be part of the Romantic era backlash. The earliest notable Emily is an American from -- where else? -- Texas. Emily Austin Perry, sister of Stephen Austin (there's another iconic American name ahead of its time), who were early pioneers in Texas.

    She was born in 1795. The daughter-in-law and First Lady under president Andrew Jackson, Emily Donnelson, was born in 1807. These two are ahead of Brits of the name like Emily Bronte (born in 1818). So was American suffragette Emily Parmely Collins (b. 1814).

    Although declining from at least the late 1800s through a low-point in the 1960s -- when it was still ranked at #250 -- it shot up during the '70s, peaked at #3 for the '90s, and has fallen off since. If only the "l" were a "t" or "d", it could've been ever more popular now, as part of the "[BLANK]-ity" class.

    But I think that's where the class got its recent inspiration from, so Emily served its purpose at any rate.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Scott is another name that seems to be given to mostly Americans. There are no notable Scotts listed on Wikipedia before the 20th century.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Stephanie started the "-any" class, it looks like. That name started shooting up at the same time as Stephen for boys names, in the '40s. But it kept going for awhile, peaking in the '80s at #7.

    Tiffany only took off like crazy in the '60s, then also peaked in the '80s (at #11, staying less popular than Stephanie the whole time). It clearly piggybacked on Stephanie -- it just deleted the initial "s" ("s + consonant" initial clusters are rare for girls names), kept the "t" and the "f" sounds, and slightly raised the stressed vowel to short "i", while maintaining its front-ness. The "-any/ie" ending stayed as well.

    And it sounded less like a mere feminine variation on a male name, but a feminine name of its own.

    Stephanie being the original one also makes sense because the rest of the class wants a low-front vowel in the stressed syllable, and Stephanie's got one. Tiffany has a front vowel, but somewhat high.

    Plus Stephanie was the most popular one, and the earliest one, AFAICT.

    Where did Stephanie come from? Well, she's piggybacking on the more popular Stephen, so in that sense she's part of a Dark Age revival, not reviving the name directly.

    But as far as Stephanie's in history go, there were quite a few in the Dark Ages. Four notable nobles from the 11th and 12th centuries, and from various locations and languages -- 2 from French background (although residing in the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the Crusades), one from Castile, and another from Navarre. Earlier in the 9th C, Pope Adrian II's wife was named Stephania.

    The name died out in Europe after 1300, but was briefly revived during the 19th-C backlash against order and structure and reason, in several Euro countries.

    As I said, though, American Stephanie is not borrowing from this lineage of Stephanie's -- it's piggybacking on its more popular male version, which only the Americans revived from its former Dark Age glory, as described earlier in the original post.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Seriously, say out loud Stephanie without the "s", and marvel at how close it is to Tiffany! Only the orthography is getting in the way of our recognizing how near-identical they are. Just that tiny little difference in the stressed vowel.

    If Tiffany were spelled Tiphanie, it would be glaringly obvious what it was riffing on.

    Say them alternately back and forth -- Tephanie, Tiffany, Tephanie, Tiffany -- and notice how little your mouth and tongue are moving. The vowel is so close, and everything else is the same! Just deleting that initial "s", which is natural since initial clusters are no good for female names. Really the only exception is Stacy.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Ha, of course the dum-dums think Tiffany was spawned from Breakfast at Tiffany's, the 1961 hit movie.

    Nope -- it's just a subtle alteration of Stephanie, making it more suitable for female names, and sounding like a name of its own rather than a female variant on a more popular male name.

    Wiki even claims it comes from -- what else? -- Greek, i.e. Theophanes.

    We can reject this dum-dum claim very easily, since Tiffany does not have an "h" in the spelling, and is not pronounced with the voiceless interdental fricative as in the Greek name (theta), even though we have that sound in English (as in "think"). There is no "o" in either the spelling or pronunciation of Tiffany, nor is there a diphthong of any sort in that first syllable.

    In all English borrowings from Greek that begin with "theo", we have kept the spelling and pronunciation identical to the original (in that root anyway) -- theology, theocracy, theodicy, etc. It would be totally effortless for us to adopt Theophanes as Theophany/ie (thee-OFF-uh-nee). But we didn't -- cuz that's not where that name comes from at all!

    Keep grasping, post-hoc rationalizers! Semantics always leads the dum-dums astray, they get lost in their own clever-silly cerebral verbal-games bullshit.

    Phonology is more corporeal and physical, which is why it appealed to me the most of any domain of linguistics. I'll bet phonologists are better dancers and athletes than the semantics and syntax people!

    Also less dominated by Ashkenazi Jews (very verbal-oriented) than semantics and syntax, from what I recall of the big names.

    ReplyDelete
  79. The best you can say about Tiffany responding to Breakfast at Tiffany's is that the movie drew people's attention to the name, when it was ripe for the picking. Tiffany & Co. goes back to 1837, and became a famous luxury brand in the early 20th C, and the building where it was housed in the movie was completed in 1940 -- plenty of opportunities for Americans to notice this name.

    But from 1837 to 1940, there was nothing appealing about Tiffany cuz there was no nearly identical name Stephanie, and there was no Stephanie cuz there was no Stephen -- not at skyrocketing levels, anyway.

    The movie did not cause people to find the name appealing -- that was entirely due to the popularity of Stephanie and Stephen, which had been rising high for decades by then.

    But it could have drawn their attention to this appealing name, at which point they intuitively recognized how similar it sounded to Stephanie -- without consciously saying so, of course. But if Stephanie was a great name, then so was Tiffany -- thanks, Hollywood, for pointing that name out.

    But Hollywood did not brainwash or manufacture consent or anything dum-dum like that.

    In fact, Audrey Hepburn's character's name in that movie is Holly Golightly -- what happened to Holly? THAT is the name that should've influenced mass behavior, according to the dum-dums. Nobody named their kids Skynet after watching the Terminator, it's just some company brand name.

    Well, Holly was already shooting through the roof, as of the '40s. Again, culture creators jump on the bandwagon with names that are already popular among the masses. That's their job -- to give the audience what they like, not to brainwash them against their will as part of a vanguardist social engineering project, which always fail. Get a clue!

    Nobody in that movie is given-named Tiffany.

    Tiffany is just the name of the store, which everyone had known about for decades. Nothing newly luxurious about the brand, its merchandise, or its building, all of which remained as they were for decades.

    It was just hearing the sound sequence "Tiffany" in the title that made them recognize, unconsciously, "Hey, that sounds a lot like Stephanie, the already popular girls name -- it would make a great riff on that already popular name!"

    ReplyDelete
  80. Quick addition to the Pamela, Tamara, Angela group -- Tamela! Never a very popular member, peaking at #525 in the '60s, but rising during the '50s and '60s like the others of the group.

    Just neat to see confirmation that people are just playing around with the sound sequences -- if Pamela and Tamara are good, why not mix up some of their sounds while staying within the overall template, and try out Tamela?

    An even rarer variant is Tamala. The popular spelling being Tamela shows they were basing it on Pamela, to riff on an existing popular sound sequence.

    As usual, Tamela means nothing whatsoever, and does not derive from whatever false cognates there may be in Greek, Swahili, Vietnamese, etc.

    It's just being playful and creative with sound sequences, within a purely phonological framework. At most, the suggestion or connotation of what ethnic group it reminds you of, due to names acting as shibboleths for in-group / out-group distinction.

    Also, there was a minor variant on Tamara -- Tamra, popular at the same time, but deleting that middle vowel and trying to join the Debra and Barbara group. But like I said, something not so well-formed about that nasal-liquid sequence across the syllable boundary, unlike the stop-liquid sequence for Debra and Barbara. So Tamara won out.

    ReplyDelete
  81. That's probably it for tonight's lecture, discovery, sermon, concert, etc. Time to get ready for Irys' midnight karaoke. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  82. Carolyn is part of a rhyming class, with Marilyn and Cherilyn (all with spelling variants). Haven't looked into them all yet, but I think they're the origin of the "-lyn" names that remain ubiquitous among American girls, now including Brooklyn, Kaylynn, Jaylin, etc.

    Also related to Evelyn, another early American pseudo-Arthurian name. But the three early ones above rhyme all 3 syllables, clearly part of a broad phenomenon.

    So broad, they just might have to do with some male names I'm about to write about, including Mervin / Marvin -- related to Marilyn? Maybe, maybe not. But both sounding Medieval Welsh, and spelled accordingly with that odd "y" in the final syllable, although with the usual "i" for the male names -- male names being more resistant to embellishment.

    ReplyDelete
  83. First up is Patrick, the Irish version of 19th-C Dark Age revivals among Euros (including the Irish diaspora in America). Similar to Germans and Austrians reviving Engelbert, or Russians reviving Mikhail.

    Patrick comes from the Latin honorific title Patricius, related to patrician (elite, not plebian / commoner). But as a given name, it's only from the moribund stage of Roman history, in the Dark Ages, and even more so among the Byzantines. It's not a Classical-era given name.

    The earliest Patricius is the father of St. Augustine of Hippo, from the mid-4th C. But he's not so well known in his own right.

    The best known Patricius is St. Patrick, the missionary and patron saint of Ireland, from the 5th C. True to the nomad-dominant, weak central state climate of the times, he was kidnapped by Irish raiders / pirates, from his home somewhere in Britain, and only escaped some years later back to Britain, eventually returning to Ireland to convert them to Christianity.

    Also true to the monster-battling hero archetype that people long for in the absence of a strong central state that could provide protection against violent roaming threats, he's said to have driven all the snakes out of Ireland, similar to the Byzantine legends about St. George slaying the dragon.

    Patrick / Patricius had already died out by the second half of the Dark Ages, possibly because the Roman Empire had zero meaning or prestige by that point. It remained dead for most of the post-Dark Ages, until a popular revival sometime in the 19th or early 20th century, relating not just to the Euro-wide malaise with structure, order, and security, but also to the growing Irish independence movement, and reviving their pre-British conquest figures and heroes.

    It enjoyed some popularity in America, but not as much as in Ireland -- and here, probably mostly among the Irish diaspora.

    Worth noting how recent some of these ancient names are -- due to conscious revivals, not to an unbroken, long-standing tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Wikipedia says that Marcia is of Italian origin but there are no Italians with the name Marcia in the Wikipedia article:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_(given_name)

    ReplyDelete
  85. More definitively American is the feminine version, Patricia, which was likely piggybacking on the surging popularity of Patrick. It cracked the top 1000 baby girls names in America by the 1880s, and continued rising toward its peak in the 1940s, when it climbed all the way to #4.

    It was way more popular than its male counterpart / inspiration, which only reached #32 in the '60s, and which was actually in decline during the late 19th and early 20th C, only rising again in the '30s.

    Like Patrick, it is a Dark Age revival, with the only notable historical Patricia being a Byzantine saint from the 7th C (Patricia of Naples, after the spot where she eventually wound up, but from Constantinople). In this case, the revival is unintended -- it was just piggybacking on the conscious revival of Patrick, known to English-speakers, unlike St. Patricia of Naples / Constantinople.

    Via its nicknames Trisha and Trish, it likely influenced the appearance of Trac(e)y, which began rising in the '40s or '50s and reached its peak in the '70s -- very Gen-X girls name. There are no other popular girls names that begin with "tr" before that time, and like Tiffany, Trac(e)y used to be a surname, not a given feminine name.

    Tracy and Trisha also shares a voiceless sibilant for their 3rd consonant (just a subtle alteration from "sh" to "s").

    Along with Tracy came rhyme-mate Stac(e)y, which like it also bears an unusual consonant cluster in its head -- surely influenced by the earlier popularity of Stephanie. They're the only hit girls names beginning with "st".

    Their timing and overall popularity are about the same, among their spelling variants.

    Once the highly unusually headed Tracy and Stacy fell off, the rest of the name "-acy" was kept around for repurposing into a new rhyming class, first with Casey and Lacey, then Macy and Jaycee. There are evidently no real-life Chaseys, but there was a famous '90s adult film actress by the screen name of Chasey Lain. (If you image search her, add "90s" to the search terms, to only show her when she was supermodel-caliber, not what she apparently descended into in the 2000s.)

    Whatever claims there are about the meaning / origins of these names, is the usual BS. They're a rhyming class that spun off from a phonologically similar founding member, ultimately Patricia.

    Patricia might have also spun off an open template of the form:

    (C) + schwa + liquid + short "i" + voiceless sibilant + schwa

    Like Melissa, Alyssa, Marissa (forgot to mention her in the earlier comments about Melissa, which she clearly copied, just changing from one liquid to another).

    These particular ones owe to the effort to carve up Elizabeth so it's no longer recognizable, starting from Eliza. But with the Patricia template also floating around, the "-lissa / -rissa" class could have gotten an extra boost in popularity.

    There's a clear influence of Patricia's template on later Alisha, which keeps the unusual "sh" sibilant, unlike Alissa.

    All of these sound suitably non-British and non-Euro, like Bronze Age Eastern Med names, aside from the "-acy" ones, which still don't sound British but more uniquely American -- cuz they are!

    ReplyDelete
  86. Sidenote: I think I finally get the appeal that girls found in Jared Leto, another '90s sex symbol. Chasey Lain and Jared Leto back then looked like opposite-sex twins.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Brief note on another iconic Dark Age revival name -- Norman. We've already covered Frank, how about the good-guy raiders who kicked out the bad-guy raiders in England in the 11th C? Normans conquered the Vikings, not Englishmen. The Normans were welcomed as liberators in an era of dominant nomads and weak central states.

    Norman was a surname after the Norman Conquest, but there are no notable people with that given name from that time or after in Europe. The supposed feminine form, Norma, is also unattested outside of a single example in 1203.

    Rather, it's an American given name, probably a conscious Dark Age revival, since it has no rhyme-mates, and doesn't seem to fit into a looser template with others either.

    The reason it was so rarely used before was its being a contemporaneous demonym -- like naming our kids America, Pilgrim, Yankee, etc. Wouldn't happen.

    But to 19th-C Americans, it had no such interference, since the Normans were not a contemporaneous ethnic group.

    It was already rising by the 1880s, and reached its peak in the 1930s at #40. After falling off, it has remained flat around the #1200 level, rather than vanishing altogether -- because it fits the Millennial / Zoomer template of Devon, Mason, and the rest.

    There's a wide-open niche to name your kid Saxon these days -- it not only fits the template, it rhymes with Jackson, and even spelled like the variant Jaxon. And it's reviving a Dark Age ethnic group from the days of wandering tribes warring against one another, one of whom landed in England, where we ultimately come from (in reality, though not in our imagination).

    ReplyDelete
  88. For all of Taleb's obsession with correcting historical BS info, I am surprised he never brings up the Crusader Sack of Constantinople in 1204, which desolated Greek civilization beyond recovery.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Kenneth is another Arthurian revival, already in the top 300 baby boys names in America by the 1880s, soared toward its peak in the 1940s at #16, then fell off after, but still remains in the top 300.

    Notable Kenneths are all Dark Age -- the 6th-C St. Kenneth of Ireland, another saint of the same name and century but from Wales, the 9th-C founder of Scotland Kenneth MacAlpin (similar to his contemporary Alfred the Great in England), and his successors Kenneth II and III from the 10th C.

    After that, no notable Kenneths until mid-19th-C births in both England and America. Maybe it occurred to them independently -- if we're going to revive Alfred, Dark Age unifier of England, why not also Kenneth, Dark Age unifier of Scotland?

    From there, its nickname became the iconic Ken, from Barbie & Ken, and of course Barbie is the nickname for another standard Midcentury American name, Barbara.

    It just occurs to me that Gwyneth is rhymed after Kenneth -- in that "Gwyn" spelling, the stressed vowel is slightly higher than in Kenneth, but it has an equally popular alternate spelling, Gwenyth, where they're the same. I've always heard people say the name of the actress Paltrow as rhyming with Kenneth.

    Plus that makes it same-headed with the literally, not pseudo, Arthurian name Gwendolyn (and its shorter form Gwen).

    ReplyDelete
  90. A timely reminder, with the anti-Zionist protests exploding, and the freakout among national-level politicians to criminalize free speech against Zionism and Israel, that America has always had a weak central state -- and now more than ever.

    It's true that we have something like a Deep State, like the Praetorian Guard or the Spanish Inquisition or the Stasi or other historical examples from empires.

    But you know who didn't have them? The Frankish Empire, the Viking Empire, and the Byzantine Empire. I'm guessing the Abbasid Caliphate did not either, whereas we all know the Ottomans and their Turkish rump state did / do.

    China has a Deep State, but Japan does not.

    Cracking down on mass behavior only works in strong central state societies, which all of Europe has been since 1300. That's the environment that creates an Orwell, Kafka, or Solzhenitsyn.

    Right now I'm watching the classic British TV show, The Prisoner, from the '60s -- and far closer to that Orwell / Kafka tradition, than its American counterparts like The Twilight Zone, Star Trek: TNG, etc. It's overtly about the Deep State of a national government, with chains of command that secure compliance from their underlings -- except for the lone rebellious protagonist.

    The American side covers that at times, but we're more likely to have our antagonists be smaller in scale than the Deep State of a full-fledged empire. And often enough, it's about the low-scale members of a community turning on each other out of fear and suspicion -- not at the control or instigation of a centralized Deep State.

    Anyway, the point is, clamping down on free speech and protesting is something that Europe, Russia, China, and India do all the time. That doesn't happen in Japan or America, though, as much as some of their elites would like to do so -- there's just not much power centralized into the national government to wield against the population.

    In fact, right now all of the clampdowns are coming from governors and mayors, directing their national guard (a misleading term for state-level military) and city police force. That's feudalism, with power decentralized to the provincial level, a lord and his retinue -- not a national gendarmie or national police like Europe, Russia, and China have.

    ReplyDelete
  91. At most, the central govt could beg the online tech barons to suspend the account of anyone that talks bad about Israel -- but even that is not on the table. They're trying to go through the national Dept of Education, which gives funding for schools, crucially colleges, at the state and city levels.

    Still, the FedGov has no power to enforce their will on all the colleges around the nation. A lot of university funding comes from the state and local tax revenues, and their real cash cow is not FedGov grants -- but Wall Street investment portfolios ("endowments"). The FedGov also does not control the big Wall Street banks or Connecticut hedge fund giants. Turning off the money-spigot enough to hurt the universities would require debanking them, freezing / seizing assets, etc., by the finance barons -- and they have no incentive to do that, and are not under FedGov control anyway.

    When the central state does not dole out shitloads of free stuff, nor provide for the security and protection of citizens (which again comes from the local cops or Natl Guard, assuming anyone shows up to defend you at all, the federal military will never stand in the line of fire to protect you), it has no leverage to threaten anyone with. Oh no, don't take away the thousandth of a percent of our endowment that comes from federal grants!

    In a decentralized, feudal society like ours, the barons scratch each other's backs, rather than the central state doling out goodies and protection to the various barons, to secure their allegiance to the state. Wall Street banks siphon money into university endowment funds, without needing approval from Congress or the President or Supreme Court. Universites reciprocate by enculturating the next generation of wannabe elites to trust the overall financial system, worship things like credit scores and cashback perks for credit cards, and be eager to serve it if anything.

    Especially at elite colleges, where these protests are hottest -- elite students are more likely to think they're in charge, or headed on their way toward being in charge after graduating. So they feel entitled to a seat at the negotiating table, and won't blindly follow orders from their own college or the national Dept of Education.

    What is their own college going to do -- suspend everyone? Revoke everyone's credentials? It'd be such a stain on their all-important MeTrIcS, they'd never dare. Same reason they grade-inflated every student to never get a failing grade -- that would bring down the college's score on THE BIG BOARD.

    That's why they're asking the local armed retinues to use force, which may give them bad publicity in the media, but will not drag down their scores in the rankings.

    Again, even that is not a central state response -- it's a very local one. It may be happening around the country, but it's not directed nor even coordinated by a national entity. It's just that the regional / local barons feel similarly about shutting down anti-Zionist protests, and they all have local armed retinues under their command, so why not use them? It's not centralized at all.

    ReplyDelete
  92. In the case of UCLA, it wasn't even the city police who were using force against protesters -- it was a rag-tag group of Zionist citizens, who obviously had the blessing of the local police and any Deep State handlers in the area, but were also not agents of those entities going undercover / agent provocateur.

    It's similar to Antifa during the Trump years -- mostly private citizens who had the blessing of the Deep State, but were not literal flunkies from the FBI or NYPD. They probably weren't even formally deputized by the local police or Deep State -- just given their word of honor, to look the other way if they wanted to stab or shoot Trump supporters live on TV, since they shared an enemy.

    These pop-up protests, and pop-up counter-protests, must have been what violence in politics was like during the nomad-dominant Dark Ages or the Bronze Age, akin to raiding / rustling livestock, then counter-raiding or getting reprisals. No central state that could shut down either side, even if it gave one side its lip-service blessing.

    Or more to the historically relevant point -- the Wild West in America. Supposedly the police were least present at the UCLA protest, compared to the East Coast and Great Lakes protests.

    A strong central state would never allow its monopoly on legitimate violence to be broken by rag-tag groups of wannabe thugs, like the Zionists at UCLA, or Antifa. It would undermine state authority, showing that they're too impotent to do it themselves, so they farm it out to decentralized networks that operate outside the national, state, or local governments.

    "Paramilitaries" is too extreme, which suggests they're centrally organized but semi-off-the-books. No, these are more like street gangs or feuding clans, which dominate a weak central state society.

    Actually strong central states send in the national gendarmie, like the Guardia Civil in Spain, or the Carabinieri in Italy, who have clearly identifiable uniforms that remind everyone -- this is a central state presence, and since the central state is strong, you'd better watch yourselves, or you'll get smacked back in line.

    We have no such Carabinieri-esque organizations, no such uniformed presence, and therefore, no such reminder not to get on the wrong side of the national government.

    In America, you can tell the FedGov to go take a load of AIDS up its ass, and they will not punish you -- not cuz they wouldn't like to, but cuz they don't have enough power centralized up to their level, to direct against you -- let alone all the offending citizens out there.

    In America, you're taking on the Governor or City Hall, and their far weaker armed forces (no nukes, no carpet-bombing, no navy, no missiles, no nothing). At that level of decentralized armed forces, it's a lot harder to control rowdy crowds.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Which is why they usually don't bother -- videos of police crackdowns on protesters are always way worse from Europe, and those are national police / gendarmeries.

    I don't know why they're bothering trying to wield their local-level armed forces against protesters, when there's no way that's enough, and so it makes the city / state leader look powerless and shamed when they prove predictably ineffective.

    Maybe it's being in the collapse stage of our imperial lifespan, when leaders start doing all kinds of pointless crazy shit out -- not out of desperation and anxiety, but out of seething vindictiveness.

    "Oh yeah, you think you're gonna make me look bad by protesting Israel with no violent consequences? Well, it may not shut your protest down, but I'm gonna bring you down with me!"

    20-25 years ago, when I was part of these protests, the city and state barons could not have stopped us through force either -- but they were not so seethingly, ragingly vindictive like their counterparts today. They decided better to let them blow off steam, get into shouting matches with counter-protesters, but by no means would they have discredited their own authority by sending in the cops or National (State) Guard to try to arrest us or beat us up, which would have had zero effect on the protests' size and intensity.

    Now, we're in the "fuck it all, pull out all the stops" stage of empire, and local / state leaders will and are going to discredit their authority and prove their own impotence beyond doubt, just out of seething vindictiveness.

    "If I feel bad, you're going to feel bad too!" No matter if it unravels what shrinkingly little institutional legitimacy, credibility, and authority they have left to get compliance from the peasantry or the wannabe elites.

    It's going from the patriarchal disciplined father role, to the drunken-rage deadbeat dad role, who never gets his kids to obey him.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Final remarks on this topic (for the night anyway): it's not really the central state providing goodies to the barons that gets their compliance to the central state's orders and institutions.

    It's that the barons have decided to delegate that power, authority, wealth, and monopoly on violence to the central state.

    Why? They usually want to hoard those precious things for themselves.

    That's where the nomadic threats come in -- it takes a strong central state to crush nomadic raids, expel the nomads, and scare them away from trying to get reprisals.

    Nomads are nomadic -- and as hard as it may be for a central state to chase them all the way into the depths of the Steppe (or open sea), it's *even* harder for a provincial lord or city council to do that kind of chasing.

    That's the link to fortress architecture in nomad-dominant times -- regional lords don't even bother trying to hunt down the raiders, they play pure defense, and what else can they do but build solid walls around the things that are valuable?

    A strong central state doesn't build a wall around the entire national borders, although that may play a part. Even there, policing a national border requires national-level cooperation -- it can't be done in patchwork by regional lords. It has to be centrally coordinated and executed.

    What if there's a weak link? What if one regional lord betrays the others for nomad money? National borders can never happen in a feudal society, which is why ours have always been non-existent, and why our architecture has always been so fortress-like.

    And the defense doesn't need to cover the entire border, since a strong central state also has a strong standing army that can fill in any gaps in the defense, as well as go on the offense against the would-be raiders, or to get reprisals against raiders who made it back out into the Steppe or open sea.

    Enduring, repeated, intense nomadic raids eventually wear down the private greed of the regional lords, and make them take a second look at the whole "boo, central state" behavior. Maybe it's worth it to pool some of our resources, material and social, into a central state, since that's the only fighting shot we've got at protecting ourselves from these nomadic predators.

    And that goes as well for purely internal group violence -- like one regional lord vs another, forgetting about any external raiders.

    Eventually that internecine violence wears everyone down, and makes them consider delegating some of their authority, wealth, and violence abilities, to a central state, assuming it's fairly neutral w.r.t. the regional lords.

    ReplyDelete
  95. So what causes the pendulum to swing back the other way? Once that power, wealth, and violence has been delegated to the central state, how does it ever get clawed back by the regional lords?

    It becomes a victim of its own success -- the strong central state wipes out the nomadic external threats, and pacifies the internecine feuding within its own lord class. A true happy ending!

    But this state of peace goes on for so long, that eventually there is certainly no personal memories of the nomad-dominant world, but not even institutional memories of them, which would warn them about clawing back what they granted to the central state.

    "Ah, bollocks! That's just a bunch of hysterical scholarly hand-wringing from 900 years ago -- the world today is so different from then! Who exactly are we protecting ourselves against? The Huns, Alans, Magyars, Goths, and Vandals haven't been seen for centuries! Our regional lords may occasionally descend into civil war once every several centuries, but they're not in a permanent ongoing state of feuding and raiding each other. Problem solved! We don't need those powers centralized into the national state anymore -- we're taking them back for ourselves, to enhance our own status and prestige and authority. Nothing to worry about, though -- there are no threats that need defending against anymore!"

    By weakening the central state through un-delegating their wealth, power, and violence, the regional lords -- with no effective institutional memories of the nomad-dominant days -- expose the entire society, from the top down to the provincial level, to nomadic raiders from outside, and open up the can of internecine raiding and feuding within the internal lord class. Each lord has his own private army again -- and they're damn well going to use it! Perhaps to go on the offensive, or to deter others. But in any case, there goes the pacification of internal raiding.

    And pretty soon, the society enters the nomad-dominant times again, whether the nomads are internal or external.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Why don't the societies change instantly when nomads show up? Cuz the regional lords wave that away as a temporary fluke -- annoying, even tragic that these predators get away with their raiding. But not severe enough to force the lords into delegating their authority to a central state.

    That's why the raiding needs to go on for so long, and be so intense, that the lords can no longer wave it away as a temporary fluke.

    Then the central state machinery gets switched on.

    But like any system with hysteresis, when it's long and slow to switch on, it stays on for a long time, even after the motivating stimulus goes away.

    Same reason -- how do we know the absence of nomads is not just a temporary fluke? Who says they or some other nomadic group won't be back next year or next decade? We can't just shut off the central state machinery like a light-switch. Better to just keep it running idle until it's needed actively -- and who can say it's no longer needed, unless a veeeerrrrryyyy long time has passed with no nomadic raiding.

    These systems are called "fast-slow" systems in the differential equation modeling world, where one variable acts fast -- the nomads, in this case, who don't even need to coordinate with other nomad groups, only themselves -- and the other variable reacts slow -- the collective consensus of the lords.

    Fast-slow systems tend to have hysteresis for the reasons above. Digestive enzyme production, as a reaction to the presence of the food it's meant to digest -- if there's just a tiny morsel that comes into the stomach, who says it's time to turn on the enzyme? Maybe it's just a morsel. Not until there's a steady flow of it does the enzyme production ramp up.

    And just cuz there's a lull in the flow of food -- why shut down the enzyme? Maybe the mouth is just taking a break, to chat, or relax, or prepare the next course or whatever. Keep enzyme production on, even in the absence of food, if it's been switched on already. Keep it idle, so it can be used immediately when the food flow resumes.

    Only shut off enzyme production when the flow of food has stopped for a long time. Only then is it safe.

    ReplyDelete
  97. This is also distinct from the build-up and breakdown of asabiya, in the face of a meta-ethnic nemesis, a la Peter Turchin's model of imperiogenesis.

    Just cuz there's a meta-ethnic nemesis, only means that regional lords need to form a collective unit to defend themselves, and maybe then go on the offensive.

    It doesn't say whether that collective will be centralized or decentralized. It just says they're now bound together by their shared nemesis, whereas before they might not have though of each other as belong to the same Us / in-group. Now they do.

    But whether the in-group is going to be governed by a strong or weak central state is independent of the matter of a meta-ethnic nemesis and needing to cohere together.

    The strong vs. weak central state cycle is not reacting to the presence / absence of a meta-ethnic nemesis, but specifically to a nomadic / raiding kind of threat, whether internal or external.

    And again, the build-up of that central state is long and slow -- just cuz Vikings raid the Seine, doesn't mean France is going to turn into a strong central state overnight. The Vikings were long gone by 1300, when the French state began centralizing like crazy -- possibly slightly earlier than that, under the reign of (Saint) Louis IX, who consolidated the territorial unification of France by Philip Augustus circa 1200.

    But I still favor a date closer to 1300, cuz no one knows right after Philip Augustus unifies France, or Louis IX consolidates those gains, that the situation will last forever. It seems like several generations moving in the same direction are needed before the lords say, OK, you're right, we need a permanent strong central state so that nothing like the Viking raids ever happen again -- not to mention the Alans, Vandals, Huns, Magyars, and so on and so forth, during our semi-recent past.

    The Frankish Empire and the French Empire were both empires, spawned by a meta-ethnic nemesis (the Roman Empire, along the border of the Rhine River, for the Franks; and the Vikings in Northern especially Northeastern France, where they came down the major rivers to raid).

    But the Franks had no long-term memories of a nomad-dominant world -- their memories were of the Roman Empire, a strong central state if ever there was one! So their lords favored a decentralized weak central state, while still cohering into an expanding empire.

    The French of the late 1st millennium had plenty of memories of nomad-dominant times, so they decided, y'know what, we can't let that happen again, our empire is going to be dominated by the central state, not a patchwork of regional lords.

    The English / British Empire of the same time, came to the same conclusion, cuz they had the same memories of the wandering tribal warfare times, right up through being occupied and ruled over by the Vikings (far worse than the French got it from the Norsemen).

    Britain had no meta-ethnic frontier to spawn an empire during its Dark Ages, so we don't have the perfect internal comparison like we do in France. But if there had been an empire in Britain during the middle of the 1st millennium, you can bet it would've been a decentralized, weak central state empire, like the Franks or the Vikings in their neck of the woods.

    ReplyDelete
  98. That's it for tonight. Just gotta make sure to keep the war-minded male audience checked in, after so much content feeding the baby-name-minded female audience.

    Sorry, guys, they're just too cute to ignore. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  99. Oooh, this one's for Moom and Fauna -- Bella, Edward, and Jacob! A very good example of the non-causative role of pop culture on mass behavior, like choosing baby names.

    The book Twilight came out in 2005, and the movie in 2008. Bella, the name of the female protag, rose afterward -- but it had already been shooting up like crazy *before* the book came out!

    It was nearly non-existent from the earliest American records, and was outside the top 2000 names up through the 1990s. But it began climbing like crazy during y2k: it leap-frogged from outside the top 2000, all the way to #750 in 2000, and by 2004 had climbed further to #260 -- before the book even came out.

    So, Stephenie Meyer, the book's author, was just jumping on the bandwagon, not sparking a trend of her own. Culture creators supply what the audience demands, they don't socially engineer a bunch of blank slates.

    Moreover, Bella itself is clearly piggybacking on the success of Isabella, which took off beginning in the '90s, and nearly a decade later, the shortened form Bella took on a life of its own -- before Twilight.

    These two are part of a broader rhyming class whose founding member was Gabriela, which began climbing during the '60s and '70s, along with alternate spelling Gabriella (with two l's -- mimicking the then-popular ending "-elle" as in Danielle, Gabrielle, Elle, etc.). The two-l version became the more popular form by the '90s, since it looks more exotic, and while fashioning a whole new cultural identity for ourselves, we always prefer the more exotic form.

    Around the same time that Gabriel(l)a took off, so did Daniel(l)a, spinning off from Danielle. It never got as popular as Gabriel(l)a, cuz people were used to it being Danielle, so Daniella wasn't so exotic and novel, whereas Gabrielle was not as common as Danielle, and rose a bit later, so it was able to do a quick costume change and convince everyone it was a brand new name, Gabriel(l)a.

    Other names that joined in during the '90s-and-after "-ella" fest: Stella, Estella, Ella, Hella (jk), Della, Coachella (jk again), Zella (fr), Vella (far less common), Briella, and Nella -- and that's just the ones I can think of to check!

    The multisyllabic ones are harder to think of. I checked Ezekiella -- no hits so far, Gen Alpha username spotted!

    To spell it out: the base name is an ancient Semitic name from the Jewish Bible -- Gabriel and Daniel, both masculine. So just give them feminine endings, and with 2 l's, and a pronounced schwa rather than a silent "e" at the end -- and ooh la la, they sound both ancient Semitic, ancient Greek, and Latin all at once! (Naturally, none of these names were used before America's founding.)

    No McKella's either, if you were thinking of naming yet another girl McKenzie or McKenna, but want to rhyme it from a different popular base name.

    Some of those "-ella" names were huge names back in Victorian / Edwardian times, and have come back from the dead.

    Speaking of Edwardians coming back from the dead, how about Edward, Bella's main love interest in the series? Edward has been in steep decline in America since the Edwardian era, and received no boost whatsoever from the Twilight series.

    Jacob was more popular than Edward, but had already reached its peak in the '90s -- Meyer was even more late to the bandwagon on that one than for Bella.

    ReplyDelete
  100. To clarify, Gabriella is the founding member of the currently popular rhyming class of "-ella" names. Like I said, quite a few were highly popular back in the late 19th C, and perhaps earlier, in America, like Ella (#17 in the 1880s), Stella, and Estella.

    As mentioned, they're related to the "-elle" class, which also has old roots (e.g., Belle being #107 for the 1880s), before the sudden skyrocketing appearance of Danielle in the mid-20th century.

    And they're also related to the "-elly/ie" class, whose oldest popular member is Nellie (#19 for the 1880s), before being joined by Kelly and Shelly during the mid-20th century (the same time Danielle and Gabrielle took the place of Victorian names Belle and Nell within their rhyming class).

    None of these names mean anything, as their inspirations draw from ancient Semitic, Latin, and who knows what else. They just sound like names you haven't heard before if you're a Brit or a Euro, at least from after 1300 (no, I'm not going to check which ones are potential Dark Age revivals, but I doubt many are).

    And some of them are not borrowings or adaptations at all, but pure coinages, like Della, Briella, and even potential founding members Elle, Ellie, and Ella (not pronounced with an "l" in Spanish, where it has meaning).

    They simply sound new in history -- just like our American culture! They're the perfect fit.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."