New Post
Search
Help[Facts] Re: Ether?
in reply to a message by LMS
Perhaps its a mis-spelling/understanding of Ethel?
1
Replies
Then, we are left with the question, "Why did such mass misspellings end in 1910?"
1
They didn't. Because the name was not in the top 1000 does not mean it totally disappeared. You need to look beyond the top 1000. (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/limits.html).
Also keep in mind that the SSA does not include any name with fewer than 5 occurrences. So there are 5 Ethers listed for 1883, but it is unlisted for 1884. Maybe that year there were 4, or 3.
As far as later years go...it dropped off the top 1000 in 1910, but there were still 16 Ethers born in 1911, 15 in 1912, 11 in 1913, and so on. I got as far as 1934 before I ran out of time to keep looking and it was still going comparatively strong (22 Ethers; of course a much larger total number of people recorded by the SSA than there were in the 1880s).
I stand by my earlier statement that it was a dialectal variant of Ethel (or possible a misspelling of Esther) and nothing to do with the anaesthetic.
Also keep in mind that the SSA does not include any name with fewer than 5 occurrences. So there are 5 Ethers listed for 1883, but it is unlisted for 1884. Maybe that year there were 4, or 3.
As far as later years go...it dropped off the top 1000 in 1910, but there were still 16 Ethers born in 1911, 15 in 1912, 11 in 1913, and so on. I got as far as 1934 before I ran out of time to keep looking and it was still going comparatively strong (22 Ethers; of course a much larger total number of people recorded by the SSA than there were in the 1880s).
I stand by my earlier statement that it was a dialectal variant of Ethel (or possible a misspelling of Esther) and nothing to do with the anaesthetic.
This message was edited 8/18/2014, 7:17 AM
1
"...nothing to do with the anaesthetic."
I'm not supporting the anesthetic interpretation, either, but "ether" (without an "a") for the longest time was a poetic term for heavens, sky, etc. There is a precedent for that meaning in feminine personal names seen in CELESTE, HEAVEN & SKY.
It was also considered a scientific term in Victorian Era astronomy.
I'm not supporting the anesthetic interpretation, either, but "ether" (without an "a") for the longest time was a poetic term for heavens, sky, etc. There is a precedent for that meaning in feminine personal names seen in CELESTE, HEAVEN & SKY.
It was also considered a scientific term in Victorian Era astronomy.
This message was edited 8/18/2014, 4:21 PM
1
Yes, I'm familiar with the poetical meaning (root of ethereal, etc.) However, the OP suggested that the usage of Ether was possibly linked to the drug, and I don't think that's likely.
Celeste does appear in the data for the same time period. However, I'm not sure that you can extrapolate from the usage of this Latin/French name (borne by several popes, popular among early Christians) that most of the English-speaking parents who chose Ether in the first half of the 20th century used it because of its literal meaning. Of course, it is possible that a few did.
For what it's worth, Heaven and Sky are not recorded in the data at this early period. Skye first appears in 1962, Heaven in 1971, so they could hardly be the "precedent" for Ether.
And just curious, what do you mean by '"ether" (without an "a")'?
Celeste does appear in the data for the same time period. However, I'm not sure that you can extrapolate from the usage of this Latin/French name (borne by several popes, popular among early Christians) that most of the English-speaking parents who chose Ether in the first half of the 20th century used it because of its literal meaning. Of course, it is possible that a few did.
For what it's worth, Heaven and Sky are not recorded in the data at this early period. Skye first appears in 1962, Heaven in 1971, so they could hardly be the "precedent" for Ether.
And just curious, what do you mean by '"ether" (without an "a")'?
1
"...And just curious, what do you mean by '"ether" (without an "a")'...? "
Some here have claimed that the celestial use of "ether" was more commonly spelt as "aether." Victorian examples I have seen usually favor the former.
As to the precedent of "heaven" & "sky" in given names, most early bearers of these names were named from their own dictionaries* (not baby name books).
When somebody addressed CAELESTIS, he (and everyone within earshot) heard, "Hey, Heavenly, would you come over here and help me with this...?"
When Biblical Isaac had to bury his parents, the contemporary ear would hear, "Laugh-er would like to give the eulogy, now..."
All of Jacob's business partners knew him, literally, as Underhanded...! His fraternal twin, being covered with red hair from birth, was named (to their ear) Hairy [Esau], and nicknamed Red [Edom]. Bibles translate words, but they transliterate names. (It would be harder for us to read, if they didn't.)
The precedent of heaven/sky names has been established when they were the native language of their bearers, including the modern English HEAVEN & SKY. There is even a contemporary Spanish name that is immediately heard by Spanish-speakers as Sea-&-Sun [Merysol]. Native Americans adopted the same practice.
OTOH, the bulk of American English names are xenogenic** in their origin. They are considered largely for their euphony and historical namesakes more than their obscure etymologies. There is a precedent to use one's own words as names AND that precedent includes one's words for HEAVEN & SKY.
*Would that be "idiogenic?"
**Xenogenic naming seems to be a throwback to the integration of conquering and conquered nations and to peaceful immigration.
Some here have claimed that the celestial use of "ether" was more commonly spelt as "aether." Victorian examples I have seen usually favor the former.
As to the precedent of "heaven" & "sky" in given names, most early bearers of these names were named from their own dictionaries* (not baby name books).
When somebody addressed CAELESTIS, he (and everyone within earshot) heard, "Hey, Heavenly, would you come over here and help me with this...?"
When Biblical Isaac had to bury his parents, the contemporary ear would hear, "Laugh-er would like to give the eulogy, now..."
All of Jacob's business partners knew him, literally, as Underhanded...! His fraternal twin, being covered with red hair from birth, was named (to their ear) Hairy [Esau], and nicknamed Red [Edom]. Bibles translate words, but they transliterate names. (It would be harder for us to read, if they didn't.)
The precedent of heaven/sky names has been established when they were the native language of their bearers, including the modern English HEAVEN & SKY. There is even a contemporary Spanish name that is immediately heard by Spanish-speakers as Sea-&-Sun [Merysol]. Native Americans adopted the same practice.
OTOH, the bulk of American English names are xenogenic** in their origin. They are considered largely for their euphony and historical namesakes more than their obscure etymologies. There is a precedent to use one's own words as names AND that precedent includes one's words for HEAVEN & SKY.
*Would that be "idiogenic?"
**Xenogenic naming seems to be a throwback to the integration of conquering and conquered nations and to peaceful immigration.
This message was edited 8/18/2014, 9:03 PM
1
Additional data
I had a chance to continue researching. Ether appears in the SSA data every consecutive year from 1889 to 1952. Then, it becomes sporadic for about a decade. The instances of Ether for the last few years are:
1953 - unlisted (meaning fewer than 5 instances)
1954 - 5
1955 - 9
1956 - unlisted
1957 - 6
1958-1963 - unlisted
1964 - 6
1965-present - unlisted (actually, I stopped looking after 1975.)
I hope this is helpful.
I had a chance to continue researching. Ether appears in the SSA data every consecutive year from 1889 to 1952. Then, it becomes sporadic for about a decade. The instances of Ether for the last few years are:
1953 - unlisted (meaning fewer than 5 instances)
1954 - 5
1955 - 9
1956 - unlisted
1957 - 6
1958-1963 - unlisted
1964 - 6
1965-present - unlisted (actually, I stopped looking after 1975.)
I hope this is helpful.
This message was edited 8/18/2014, 7:52 AM
1
Most census takers in the 20th century were educated and therefore would spell a name in the most common form unless someone stated otherwise. For example, you would be hard pressed to find a Wilyam in the early 20th century, but in the 19th century you would find Willyam, Willieam, Willam, etc. because census takers would simply write how they thought it was spelled due to lack of education. That doesn't exlude that there were legitimate spelling variations such as Edythe, Edyth, and Edith.
But, foreign names are also misspelled quite frequently if the census taker was not of the culture he was taking a census from, and simply unaware of the names and would thus spell them phonetically or sometimes nowhere near phonetically due to language barriers. Hence also why many people have Americanized surnames after immigrating to the US. Petrovich changed to Peters, for example.
But, foreign names are also misspelled quite frequently if the census taker was not of the culture he was taking a census from, and simply unaware of the names and would thus spell them phonetically or sometimes nowhere near phonetically due to language barriers. Hence also why many people have Americanized surnames after immigrating to the US. Petrovich changed to Peters, for example.
1
The SSA data is all from Social Security applications, not censuses, isn't it? Am I missing something here? Maybe you mean the people who type in the SS applicant data.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/background.html
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/background.html
1
I thought so, but then someone told me it was compiled from census records which would then have human error and technological error involved.
1
Even though, not everyone at that time applied for a SS card, that point should rule out most supposed clerical errors.
1
Well, the data was surely read from a form and typed up, so clerical errors were probably common. My point was just that the education level of census-takers seems to be irrelevant. And the education level of anyone transcribing data is kind of irrelevant, since education does not make people less prone to typographical errors. Anyway I would guess it's likely that people have often spelled names the way they liked to, just as they do now, but now conventions for spelling the most common names are more crystallized than they were in the past.
1
So, the 19th century [less-]literates were only employed in the years:
1883,
1886,
1889,
1890,
1898,
1900,
1902,
1908 &
1910?
That is only a third of those years. Wouldn't clerical error [of Esther & Ethel] have been more persistent?
In that same time period, Ethel remained in the top 20 and Esther, in the top 100.
1883,
1886,
1889,
1890,
1898,
1900,
1902,
1908 &
1910?
That is only a third of those years. Wouldn't clerical error [of Esther & Ethel] have been more persistent?
In that same time period, Ethel remained in the top 20 and Esther, in the top 100.
1