Subject: RE: Help: Pronunciation of Gillian Welch's name
From:
PoppaGator
Date: 31 Dec 09 - 01:44 PM
As an American (or USian, as per Frank Lloyd Wright), I spent the first 25 or 30 years of my life never encountering the name "Gillian." Then I learned that an acquaintance was about to marry someone by that name.
Seeing the name in print before hearing it pronounced, I assumed that the initial letter was a "hard" G. Only after being introduced in person did I learn that the young lady pronounced her name with a "soft" G, like "Jillian."
For what it's worth, this Gillian was born in Canada. Perhaps her name was/is more common up there than here in the States, where it is a decidedly uncommon name.
Ms. Welch was named by her parents, presumably Americans like me, and they obviously would have determined how her name would be pronounced. I would guess that they encountered the name in print, liked it, assumed that the pronunciation would be "just like it's spelled" according to their understanding, and put it to use.
If she were named after someone (especially if "Gillian" were a "family name" given to a long series of aunties and grandmas dating all the way back to the Old Country), she would perhaps be more likely to use the traditional pronunciation with the soft G.
***************
"JONH"!!!! Pretty amusing!
I have become more and more sympathetic to the notion that every person is entitled to determine the correct spelling and pronunciation of his/her own name, no matter how unconventional, but I, too, would have difficulty going along with this particular affectation.
Saying that this person "styles himself" Jonh implies that the contrarian spelling was NOT the work of his parents, but something he came up with himself. If such is indeed the case, I agree that he should not be "rewarded" with unquestioning recognition/affirmation.
I remember, years ago, becoming aware of the first of what would become a long series of celebrity athletes named "Micheal." My reaction was that the person was WRONG, and stupid to boot, for not using the "correct" spelling of Michael. I have since gotten over that attitude.
First of all, it was the person's parents, not he himself, who determined the spelling -- the "namee" should never be blamed for the unconventionality of his/her name. Plus which, it's not for me to judge those parents, or even to speculate whether their choice of a name and of the spelling thereof may have been the result of limited education or a conscious choice to be "different."
Since then, of course, we have seen a proliferation of newly coined names, especially among African-Americans. For a while, I maintained a bit of sneering contempt for many of these made-up names (especially the attempts at a sort of pseudo-French-African language featuring apostrophes as accents in all the "wrong" places), but I have come around to the position that ALL such names, even the most seemingly outlandish, should be regarded as examples of creativity, not ignorance.
After all, why shouldn't Black Americans create their own entirely new culture? Certainly, the "slave names" inherited from one's ancestors' owners are really not suitable (as famously pointed out by Malcolm X, among others). Why not accept the development of a whole new nomenclature for people of an emerging culture that is neither Anglo-American nor African, and that will no longer accept any hint of subservience or inferiority. Go for it!
No matter how wacky some of these neologisms might seem to some overeducated outsiders, NONE of these newly-invented names could possibly be any nuttier than some of those abovementioned ultra-archaic British place-names and family names!
PS: I was quite gratified to learn that the not-uncommon English surname "Menzies," which I've encountered often enough in print but never heard spoken, is (and has always been) pronouced "Mingus." NEVER would have guessed!
|
sj
