By tne name of

Question

This phrase is used both adjectivally and adverbially in ordinary diction.

A man by the name of George was standing at the door.

Whille he was in China, he went by the name of Sai.

Is the adjectival application, as in my first sentence, 100% acceptable, or is this a case of a doubtful construction's being accepted only because it is common?

Avangi · Accepted Answer

electrumIs the adjectival application, as in my first sentence, 100% acceptable, or is this a case of a doubtful construction's being accepted only because it is common?

I don't think these two options are mutually exclusive.
Are you suggesting that acceptance because of commonness is less than 100%?

In my opinion, both uses are 100% acceptable, and both uses are a bit special in terms of construction and word usage.

There's some suggestion in the net that "to go by the name of" is an idiom, but it's a bit slippery.

Electrum · Answer

AvangiAre you suggesting that acceptance because of commonness is less than 100%?

This kind of sentence is fairly common in the US: Him and I seen your guys's ma. Does that make it correct?

In Latin, prepoositions were generally attached to nouns with intervening participles or adjectives:

A man seated in a chair vs. a man in a chair

A girl dressed in a red skirt vs. a girl in a red skirt

There is a tendency among some writers, especially older ones, to prefer the Latinate structure.

AvangiThere's some suggestion in the net that "to go by the name of" is an idiom, but it's a bit slippery.

Change that to: to be known by the name of

Avangi · Answer

electrumThis kind of sentence is fairly common in the US: Him and I seen your guys's ma. Does that make it correct?

I take your point.

I think the difference here is that your example is a sloppy and incorrect version of the correct form, and it resembles the correct form in many respects.

But "to go by the name of Joe" is not a corrupted version of some other "correct" version.

But are you now suggesting that "to go by the name of Joe" is a sloppy and incorrect version of "to be known by the name of Joe," the latter of which is in fact grammatically correct, and the former not?

To my native ear, they are both correct, but have a slight difference in implication.

It may be true that "to go by the name" is slightly lower register than "to be known by the name," but in formal use, I would choose the one which said what I wanted to say.

- A.

By tne name of

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions