this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
883 points (98.4% liked)
People Twitter
8439 readers
1531 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ignoring all the straw-manning which has nothing to do with anything I wrote…
To be clear - your contention is that a spelling in a name can only legitimately be changed if the new spelling is an equivalent alternate spelling of the same syllable from a different context and where the two spellings must have an equivalnet definition in that context, but that definiteion does not need to be relevant to the name itself? I don’t think you’ve said that last part, but I’m kind of assuming that you wouldn’t argue that someone called Ashley or Ashleigh would necessarily have to have been born in a meadow surrounded by ash trees.
So…how do you feel about Kayleigh? Derived from Caoilfhionn. Means fair-haired. The spelling “Kayleigh” is around 40-odd years old. You dislike it for the same reasons and with the same vociferousness as Emmaleigh, correct?
And you are, of course, fully in favour of Oakleigh, since it’s exactly the same as Ashleigh except with oak trees rather than ash trees. The fact that it’s a very new variation has no impact on your feelings towards it, right?