Re: Q words (was: Chicago Convention Freedom Rights Explained)

Ron Resnick (
Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:47:39 +0300 (EET DST)

> >Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:03:15 -0400 (EDT)
> >X-Sender:
> >To: Seth Golub <>, Megan Coughlin <>
> >From: duck <>
> >Subject: Re: Q words (was: Chicago Convention Freedom Rights Explained)
> >Cc: FoRK <>
> >
> >>I contend that while non-names (words that reference classes of
> >>objects) do enter the language through common usage, proper names
> >>(words that reference particular objects) never do.
> >
> > Maybe proper names don't enter the English language as proper
> >names, but often proper names become adjectives describing a memorable
> >characteristic of the individual, (eg: MICAWBER: one who is poor but
> >lives in optimistic expectation of better fortune. Word is based on
> >Wilkins Micawber, a character in the Dickens novel David Copperfield [1852]).
> > Authors such as Charles Dickens and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle have
> >contributed a number of words to the English language based on their
> >distinctive characters.
> >
> >">
> > duck

Proper names get in as nouns this way too. Eg. - quisling, noun, named for
the Norwegian WWII traitor who sided with the 3rd Reich.

Add another questionable 'q no u' word to the list:
My Mom spells her name Rivqa (the Hebrew origin of Rebecca).