John Tone Young a écrit :
> Gabby,
> I share Lou's unease about this distinction between "name" and "word"
> as mutually exclusive categories.  There was a 17th-century German
> intelligencer called Johannes Brun who, however, was almost always
> referred to by his pseudonym 'Unmuessig', which means something
> like 'diligent' or 'never idle'.  So it was at once the man's name and
> a description of him - a proper noun, but also an adjective.  I'm sure
> listers could come up with countless similar examples.

I don't see that this is an objection to making a distinction between 
words and names in general, but merely a statement that some terms will 
blur that boundary, which is only to be expected. Some terms you might 
want to index as both names and words: nicknames (as your example); 
names that are also dictionary words that can be used as puns or 
"meaningful names"; rolenames; Latin cognomina. This doesn't change the 
fact that "apple" is a word and "John" is a name, just because I happen 
to know someone called Mick Apple or might talk about "going to the john".

In a name such as:


all of those xxNames would also be found in a dictionary, but the only 
one that it would make any sense to look up or index in this context 
would be the role-name. (Which I would probably tag as a <w> additionally.)

In any case, we have a tag for <name>, and various specializations of 
this such as persName, foreName, surname, roleName, etc. Are you 
suggesting we should stop using all these and just use <w>? After all, 
if names are really words, then all we need is <w> and <personRef> 
(which would tag names that are not names too).


Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980