Collected Precedents of the S.C.A.: Indian

Name Precedents: Indian

Laurel: Date: (year.month.date) Precedent:

François la Flamme 2003.08 The documentation provided for this name on the LoI was:
The Book of Indian Names by Raja Ram Mehotra is the source of the following information, none of which is dated: p.7 At-tar is a Kashmiri family name based on the Persian or Urdu equivalent of the traditional occupation of herbalist cum scent dealer. p.110 Indira is one of the personal names attached to the goddess Lakshmi. p.67 -bai is a female suffix attached to the given name among the Parsis.

This information does not support the use of -bai in period or that a women's name in period would have been taken from the name of goddess. Lacking such evidence, Indirabai is not registerable. Lacking evidence that Indira was used in period as a regular woman's name, it is not registerable.
The College found information regarding the submitted byname At-tar:
'attar is an Arabic word for "perfumer". It appears at least as early as the 13th Century in the name of a man we know only as ibn al-'Attar, who composed popular stories in the late 9th or early 10th Century. (Dodge, Fihrist of al-Nadim, vol. 2, p. 966) The transliteration of the submitted form looks "odd" to me; I suspect (without being able to prove it) that it is modern at best. [al-Jamal]
The cited <At-tar> is clearly derived from an Arabic occupational byname which can be written without diacritical marks as <al-'Attar> 'the perfume-maker." Arabic bynames were brought into Mughal India in late period, and so ought to be registerable within an Indian name context, with at most a weirdness. [Siren]

Lacking evidence that the form At-tar is a plausible period form, it is not registerable. [Indirabai At-tar, 08/2003 LoAR, R-West]

François la Flamme 2002.07 The submitted name mixes Arabic and Indian languages within name phrases, which is prohibited under RfS III.1.a, which requires linguistic consistency within a name element. Humayun was documented as the "name of a Mughal ruler of northern India, 1515-1556". al-Jamal notes that "technically the name is not truly 'Arabic', in that Humayun may be Mughal, a form of Mongol, rather than Arabic." The byname bint Humayun therefore combines the Arabic bint, meaning 'daughter', with the non-Arabic name Humayun. There is also some question whether the name Humayun was in common use. If it is unique to this ruler, then use of this name in a byname is presumptuous and is cause for return. In order to be registerable, this phrase needs to rendered in a single language and Humayun needs to be shown to be a name that is not unique to this ruler.

The byname al Delhi combines the Arabic element al with the Indian placename Delhi. In order to be registerable, this phrase needs to be rendered in a single language and put in a proper locative byname form. al-Jamal explains:

Al Delhi is neither proper grammar nor the correct gender. As it stands, her father is claiming to be Delhi. If locatives are formed in Mughal India according to Arabic rules of grammar, something I cannot confirm, I would expect the masculine form from someone from Delhi to be al-Delhiwayyi, and the feminine form to be al-Delhiwayyia.

The form that locative bynames take in Mughal would need to be documented as matching those in Arabic, or Delhi would need to be documented as an Arabic form of this placename, for the forms mentioned by al-Jamal to be registerable. [Masala bint Humayun al Delhi, 07/2002, R-Atenveldt]

François la Flamme 2002.05 The documentation provided for Meenakshi show it only as the name of the consort of Shiva. Lacking documentation that it was used by humans in period, or even a pattern of Indian given names in period being taken from the given names of deities or their consorts, this name is not registerable. [Meenakshi Singh, 05/2002, R-Outlands]

François la Flamme 2001.11 The submitter has provided sufficient evidence that the name Harsha is not unique to the 7th C Indian emperor of that name, which was the previous cause for return. [Harsha Varnum, 11/01, R-Caid]

François la Flamme 2001.11 Unfortunately, the only documentation provided for the byname Varnum given in the LoI was, The submitter asserts that Varnum is an epithet meaning 'shield', and that such an epithet would be appropriate for an Indian warrior (he cites personal communication with Swami Atmajananda, Ramakrishna Order, Washington D.C.). Previous precedent has ruled that communication with a modern speaker of a language is not adequate documentation for a period name:
[Name] As has been noted before, personal correspondence from a modern speaker, or even a scholar, of a language is not adequate documentation for a period name. The only documentation provided in support of the [byname] ... were a few lines ... from the ... gift shop proprietor cited as the source for the translation. Since no one in the College could come up with any supporting documentation for anything similar..., some more substantial documentation must be required from the submittor. (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 10)

Despite our high respect for [Name] and her expertise in [language] (it's what she does for a living), we have to have some idea of why she thinks it is O.K. to register this name form. Specifically we need to have documentation of the meaning and construction of the elements in this name, information not included on the letter of intent or on the forms. (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 14)
As the College was unable to find documentation of Varnum as a period byname, it must be returned for lack of documentation. [Harsha Varnum, 11/01, R-Caid]

Elsbeth Anne Roth 2001.02 As we wrote in the July 2000 LoAR,
While we allow real-world name elements in SCA names without further documentation, this is restricted to cases where "such elements are not excessively obtrusive." Combining a Gaelic Irish given name with what appears to be a non-European surname falls afoul of this restriction.
Combining an English given name with a Hindi byname is no less obtrusive. [Margaret Singh, 02/01, R-Outlands]

Elsbeth Anne Roth 2000.01 There are two problems with the name. First, we would like to see some evidence of interaction between 3rd through 6th century India and Europe. Second, it was the feelings of the College that Brahman denotes a high enough caste that the use of the name is presumptuous. We would need to see evidence that Brahman implied status no higher than gentry in Europe. [Madhu Brahman, 01/00, R-An Tir]

Da'ud ibn Auda (2nd tenure, 2nd year) 1994.08 The combination of Hindi in an otherwise all English name (Avenell is found in Reaney & Wilson) is particularly jarring, and would not have occurred in period. (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR August 1994, p. 16)

Da'ud ibn Auda (2nd year, 1st tenure) 1992.04 "While several commenters questioned the compatability factors of allowing names from the Indian subcontinent in the SCA, it was the Portuguese who in the 15th and 16th Centuries broke the Arabian monopoly on the Indian Ocean trade and established a number of settlements in India. Given the historical facts, Laurel doubts the propriety of disallowing Indian names as being incompatible." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).

Laurel:	Date: (year.month.date)	Precedent:
François la Flamme	2003.08	The documentation provided for this name on the LoI was: The Book of Indian Names by Raja Ram Mehotra is the source of the following information, none of which is dated: p.7 At-tar is a Kashmiri family name based on the Persian or Urdu equivalent of the traditional occupation of herbalist cum scent dealer. p.110 Indira is one of the personal names attached to the goddess Lakshmi. p.67 -bai is a female suffix attached to the given name among the Parsis. This information does not support the use of -bai in period or that a women's name in period would have been taken from the name of goddess. Lacking such evidence, Indirabai is not registerable. Lacking evidence that Indira was used in period as a regular woman's name, it is not registerable. The College found information regarding the submitted byname At-tar: 'attar is an Arabic word for "perfumer". It appears at least as early as the 13th Century in the name of a man we know only as ibn al-'Attar, who composed popular stories in the late 9th or early 10th Century. (Dodge, Fihrist of al-Nadim, vol. 2, p. 966) The transliteration of the submitted form looks "odd" to me; I suspect (without being able to prove it) that it is modern at best. [al-Jamal] The cited <At-tar> is clearly derived from an Arabic occupational byname which can be written without diacritical marks as <al-'Attar> 'the perfume-maker." Arabic bynames were brought into Mughal India in late period, and so ought to be registerable within an Indian name context, with at most a weirdness. [Siren] Lacking evidence that the form At-tar is a plausible period form, it is not registerable. [Indirabai At-tar, 08/2003 LoAR, R-West]
François la Flamme	2002.07	The submitted name mixes Arabic and Indian languages within name phrases, which is prohibited under RfS III.1.a, which requires linguistic consistency within a name element. Humayun was documented as the "name of a Mughal ruler of northern India, 1515-1556". al-Jamal notes that "technically the name is not truly 'Arabic', in that Humayun may be Mughal, a form of Mongol, rather than Arabic." The byname bint Humayun therefore combines the Arabic bint, meaning 'daughter', with the non-Arabic name Humayun. There is also some question whether the name Humayun was in common use. If it is unique to this ruler, then use of this name in a byname is presumptuous and is cause for return. In order to be registerable, this phrase needs to rendered in a single language and Humayun needs to be shown to be a name that is not unique to this ruler. The byname al Delhi combines the Arabic element al with the Indian placename Delhi. In order to be registerable, this phrase needs to be rendered in a single language and put in a proper locative byname form. al-Jamal explains: Al Delhi is neither proper grammar nor the correct gender. As it stands, her father is claiming to be Delhi. If locatives are formed in Mughal India according to Arabic rules of grammar, something I cannot confirm, I would expect the masculine form from someone from Delhi to be al-Delhiwayyi, and the feminine form to be al-Delhiwayyia. The form that locative bynames take in Mughal would need to be documented as matching those in Arabic, or Delhi would need to be documented as an Arabic form of this placename, for the forms mentioned by al-Jamal to be registerable. [Masala bint Humayun al Delhi, 07/2002, R-Atenveldt]
François la Flamme	2002.05	The documentation provided for Meenakshi show it only as the name of the consort of Shiva. Lacking documentation that it was used by humans in period, or even a pattern of Indian given names in period being taken from the given names of deities or their consorts, this name is not registerable. [Meenakshi Singh, 05/2002, R-Outlands]
François la Flamme	2001.11	The submitter has provided sufficient evidence that the name Harsha is not unique to the 7th C Indian emperor of that name, which was the previous cause for return. [Harsha Varnum, 11/01, R-Caid]
François la Flamme	2001.11	Unfortunately, the only documentation provided for the byname Varnum given in the LoI was, The submitter asserts that Varnum is an epithet meaning 'shield', and that such an epithet would be appropriate for an Indian warrior (he cites personal communication with Swami Atmajananda, Ramakrishna Order, Washington D.C.). Previous precedent has ruled that communication with a modern speaker of a language is not adequate documentation for a period name: [Name] As has been noted before, personal correspondence from a modern speaker, or even a scholar, of a language is not adequate documentation for a period name. The only documentation provided in support of the [byname] ... were a few lines ... from the ... gift shop proprietor cited as the source for the translation. Since no one in the College could come up with any supporting documentation for anything similar..., some more substantial documentation must be required from the submittor. (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 26 Jul 87, p. 10) Despite our high respect for [Name] and her expertise in [language] (it's what she does for a living), we have to have some idea of why she thinks it is O.K. to register this name form. Specifically we need to have documentation of the meaning and construction of the elements in this name, information not included on the letter of intent or on the forms. (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR 30 Sep 89, p. 14) As the College was unable to find documentation of Varnum as a period byname, it must be returned for lack of documentation. [Harsha Varnum, 11/01, R-Caid]
Elsbeth Anne Roth	2001.02	As we wrote in the July 2000 LoAR, While we allow real-world name elements in SCA names without further documentation, this is restricted to cases where "such elements are not excessively obtrusive." Combining a Gaelic Irish given name with what appears to be a non-European surname falls afoul of this restriction. Combining an English given name with a Hindi byname is no less obtrusive. [Margaret Singh, 02/01, R-Outlands]
Elsbeth Anne Roth	2000.01	There are two problems with the name. First, we would like to see some evidence of interaction between 3rd through 6th century India and Europe. Second, it was the feelings of the College that Brahman denotes a high enough caste that the use of the name is presumptuous. We would need to see evidence that Brahman implied status no higher than gentry in Europe. [Madhu Brahman, 01/00, R-An Tir]
Da'ud ibn Auda (2nd tenure, 2nd year)	1994.08	The combination of Hindi in an otherwise all English name (Avenell is found in Reaney & Wilson) is particularly jarring, and would not have occurred in period. (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR August 1994, p. 16)
Da'ud ibn Auda (2nd year, 1st tenure)	1992.04	"While several commenters questioned the compatability factors of allowing names from the Indian subcontinent in the SCA, it was the Portuguese who in the 15th and 16th Centuries broke the Arabian monopoly on the Indian Ocean trade and established a number of settlements in India. Given the historical facts, Laurel doubts the propriety of disallowing Indian names as being incompatible." (LoAR 4/92 p.7).