Name for v.s. name after

Question

"Charleston, West Virginia, was  named for  Charles Clendenin..."  Please tell me what difference between name for and name after. And can we replace  named for  with  named after  in the given sentence above? Thank you!  And Happy New Year!!!

NON CONFORMER · Accepted Answer

You should, indeed, use "named after", as it means "named in honour of", thus:

"Charlston, West Virginia, was named after Charles Clendin..."

Is the right choice, "named for", in my opinion, due to the preposition, would mean "named on behalf of..."

NON C

MrPedantic · Answer

I would disagree slightly with NC.

1. 'Named after'

'My son Charles is named after his grandfather' – i.e. the son's name is the same as the grandfather's.

2. 'Named for'

'Abies fraseri is named for the plant-collector John Fraser' – i.e. the plant's name is derived from Fraser.

AmE usage may be different; I get the impression that #2 is often used with the sense of #1 in N. America.

MrP

Jeff_999 · Answer

Thank you!

I am with MrP. It's more convincing.

1. 'Named after'

'My son Charles is named after his grandfather' – i.e. the son's name is the same as the grandfather's.

2. 'Named for'

'Abies fraseri is named for the plant-collector John Fraser' – i.e. the plant's name is derived from Fraser.

Name for v.s. name after

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions