2 Answers

  1. The historian Herodotus reports (Hist., IV, 184) that near the Sahara desert lived a certain people, the Atarans. About them, he notes that they have only a common ethnonym, but they do not have personal names (and this, according to Herodotus, is the only such people). The news of Herodotus is duplicated several centuries later by Nicholas of Damascus (frag. 140, 1 FHG), – although this is not an independent testimony, but an extract from Herodotus, however, it is significant that the author drew attention to such an interesting detail. All I mean is that there have probably been cases when people (and more broadly, entire groups) did not have names. However, it is difficult to live without a name. What you have called the banal (sic!) exchange of information is the basis for the existence of a society that is based on the relationship between people. Communication, the exchange of information, is one of the main types of interconnection. This relationship requires a name to address someone. Of course, you can do without interjections (hey, you!), but you will agree that this is somehow strange. It would be a mistake to assume that only the name constitutes a person, but the name identifies the person. In this sense, Plato made a very interesting remark. He was asked if they would write memoirs about him, and the philosopher said that first you need to make up the glory of your name, then there will be a lot of notes (Diog. Laert., Vitae philosoph., III, 38).

  2. A person only needs a name for personal communication. So that it is clear to him and others that they are being addressed to him. In other cases, the name is not needed. For example, when a person comes to a store for shopping, they don't have to give their name if they don't want to go to the level of personal communication. Or, for example, in the army: in order to exclude the role of the individual as much as possible and emphasize the commonality of the group, they are addressed in the service not by name, but by rank. Conversely, people who want to denote personal intimacy come up with intimate nicknames for each other.

    The name of a person does not determine it by itself. It is clear that there may be some habits associated with the name. But these habits are easily discarded if a person is not addressed by name. In addition, names have linguistic plasticity. They are often joined by diminutive affectionate suffixes that change the nature of treatment. The name itself can have different forms. For example:Георг Georgy Ivanovich, aka Goga, aka Gosha, aka Yuri, aka Mountain, aka Zhora, does he live here?)

    That is, the name is not made of stone. It changes in different circumstances and with different attitudes to it.

Leave a Reply