NORNA-RAPPORTER 88 Binamn. Uppkomst, bildning, terminologi ...

28 Bertie Neethling
In all these bestowed bynames, the name giver has identified an identity aspect,
no matter how small and insignificant, that adds to the total makeup of the
name carrier. It may then be a combination of positive and negative features.
Felecan (2009) even suggests that nicknaming is, most of the time, a subversive
act, and the name carrier is often oblivious of these nicknames. That might be
so in certain cases, but one should also stress the fact that the name carrier is
best situated to recall or know all the bynames used to refer to him/her. Hence
the method of selfreporting questionnaires remains likely to be the best way of
collecting information on bynames. It is equally important to realise that many
of these bynames may not have a formal written (down) tradition, i.e. are only
used in speech. As such, their representation or spelling remains arbitrary and
entirely in the hands of the name carrier who reports on them. These representations
as presented in the questionnaires have simply been accepted at face
value. The users of these bynames may have preferred different spellings.
Data on bynames
The type of additional, byname or nickname represented in the questionnaires
is of an astonishing variety, and it would probably be futile to attempt some sort
of classification, no matter what criteria one applies as a yardstick. There is often
no relationship or derivational connection whatsoever between any ‘formal’
given name and the additional name (see also Landman 1986). The
circumstances giving rise to the formation and usage of such additional names,
are so varied that it is extremely difficult to organise the data in a meaningful
way. Although respondents were asked to elaborate on how and why these additional
names were bestowed, many did not supply any meaningful explanation
or detail, and one is left to one’s own conjecture. Many appear to be the
‘whim’ of an individual with no obvious strong motivation behind the choice.
Many scholars have previously commented on the morphology of first names.
De Stadler (1985:20) mentions that proper names are morphologically speaking
‘loose’ because so many are added daily to the onomasticon and the need
for new creations is great. Van Langendonck also refers to the ‘arbitrary and
instable character of its shape’ (1982:57). This ‘looseness’ or ‘arbitrariness’ is
simply compounded in the bynames. De Klerk and Bosch (1997:95) argue that
‘Such names offer a rare example of people using language creatively in accordance
with a logic that is not laid down from outside; they are a means of
displaying linguistic licence, of breaking rules freely, and getting away with it.’
If one, however, starts off from a derivational and/or morphological viewpoint
(internal), one can identify a specific typology. Some of these will now
be highlighted.
A common probably universal category is strongly represented in the data,
and that is the so-called ‘shorter’ or abbreviated form of the formal given name.
This appears to be common all across the world. Particularly longer first names
in any language or culture group are subject to shortening, simply to facilitate