3 ms·

> Phillip Hallam-Baker Funny how the misspelling of a double consonant comes from someone who has a misspelt given name with an extra double consonant!

danso 9y ago
In the U.S., apparently both "Phillip" and "Philip" are equally popular: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/ https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/ Edit: I'm glad you made this comment. I only know people with the name "Phillip" but I constantly find myself double-checking how their name is spelt before I refer to them (in text). I chalked it up to me being a bad friend but I guess it doesn't help that I might be seeing enough of the "Philip" variation to get confused.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Popularity and correctness are often confused, especially online :)
  - cptn_brittish 9y ago
    Except spelling is a popularity contest with the one in largest use being considered the way to spell it.
ketralnis 9y ago
I don't think you can ever describe a person's name as spelled correctly or incorrectly. It's spelled how they spell it. It's their name, not a dictionary's. Variations in spelling are perfectly natural and for names in particular are incredibly common
- huac 9y ago
  Or how their parents spelt it.
- seszett 9y ago
  I'm not "attacking" their parents who chose the name or anything like that, and any spelling is fine for a name, but there is a clear etymology to the name "Philip" that comes from "philos" and "hippos", someone who loves horses, and an indisputably historically correct way to spell it. That a misspelling has become particularly common (or like for my own name, much more common than the historically correct spelling) doesn't make it anymore correctly spelt than "referer" in my opinion. But if you disagree with the term "misspelling", I can formulate it another way: let's say that it's funny how the creative modern spelling "referer" instead of the historical "referrer" comes from someone who has a creatively spelt name "Phillip" where "Philip" was historically more common, and that both differ from the historical spelling on a double consonant. It's a much more awkward sentence though for such a trivial, passing remark.
  - danso 9y ago
    I think it's being argued that describing a name variation as a "misspelling" -- as in, a mistake -- is incorrect. What does the etymology or historical popularity of "Philip" have to do with it? We don't know that he has that name because he truly loves horses or because his parents attempted to honor a king of Macedonia. I know this is treading into the classic prescriptive vs. descriptive linguistic debate, but the reason why we can call "referer" a misspelling -- rather than a creative decision - is because the original authors seem to admit that it was unintentional. Fewer folks would be calling it a misspelling if the authors had meant to do it, e.g. to avoid a name collision with some other attribute named "referrer" or to honor a colleague named "Referer".

danso 9y ago

In the U.S., apparently both "Phillip" and "Philip" are equally popular: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/ https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/ Edit: I'm glad you made this comment. I only know people with the name "Phillip" but I constantly find myself double-checking how their name is spelt before I refer to them (in text). I chalked it up to me being a bad friend but I guess it doesn't help that I might be seeing enough of the "Philip" variation to get confused.

ryandrake 9y ago
Popularity and correctness are often confused, especially online :)
- cptn_brittish 9y ago
  Except spelling is a popularity contest with the one in largest use being considered the way to spell it.

ketralnis 9y ago

I don't think you can ever describe a person's name as spelled correctly or incorrectly. It's spelled how they spell it. It's their name, not a dictionary's. Variations in spelling are perfectly natural and for names in particular are incredibly common

huac 9y ago
Or how their parents spelt it.
seszett 9y ago
I'm not "attacking" their parents who chose the name or anything like that, and any spelling is fine for a name, but there is a clear etymology to the name "Philip" that comes from "philos" and "hippos", someone who loves horses, and an indisputably historically correct way to spell it. That a misspelling has become particularly common (or like for my own name, much more common than the historically correct spelling) doesn't make it anymore correctly spelt than "referer" in my opinion. But if you disagree with the term "misspelling", I can formulate it another way: let's say that it's funny how the creative modern spelling "referer" instead of the historical "referrer" comes from someone who has a creatively spelt name "Phillip" where "Philip" was historically more common, and that both differ from the historical spelling on a double consonant. It's a much more awkward sentence though for such a trivial, passing remark.
- danso 9y ago
  I think it's being argued that describing a name variation as a "misspelling" -- as in, a mistake -- is incorrect. What does the etymology or historical popularity of "Philip" have to do with it? We don't know that he has that name because he truly loves horses or because his parents attempted to honor a king of Macedonia. I know this is treading into the classic prescriptive vs. descriptive linguistic debate, but the reason why we can call "referer" a misspelling -- rather than a creative decision - is because the original authors seem to admit that it was unintentional. Fewer folks would be calling it a misspelling if the authors had meant to do it, e.g. to avoid a name collision with some other attribute named "referrer" or to honor a colleague named "Referer".