SENA, Personal Names Part 3, Conflict

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wiki to make the content of SENA "searchable" and easier to find. If you think you find the information you seek here, go to the official home of SENA on the SCA Laurel Website to confirm the reference.

http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/sena.html

PN.3. Personal Names Conflict

http://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#PN3

PN.3A. Definitions

Conflict, as it is used in these rules, is a modern concept which derives from the requirement in the Governing Documents that names have sufficient difference to avoid undue confusion. To be registered, a new submission must be clear of conflict with all registered personal names; this means that it must avoid undue confusion with them. There are two types of confusion which must be avoided: being too close to a registered personal name itself, and claiming to be a close relative of a registered personal name. These are described in these rules as "identity conflict" and "relationship conflict".

For identity conflict, a name submission is in conflict with a registered name when they are too similar either in sound or in appearance. A name submission that is substantially different in sound and substantially different in appearance from a registered personal name is clear of conflict with it. For relationship conflict, a name that makes an unmistakable claim of close relationship to a registered personal name is in conflict with it. This section of the rules sets the standards for how names can be substantially different.

PN.3B. Individuals Protected from Conflict:

A new personal name submission must be clear from conflict with all registered personal names. Non-personal names and personal names do not conflict. A name is registered and protected from the moment it is listed as accepted on a published Letter of Acceptances and Returns. Registered names will be listed in the Ordinary and Armorial as soon as possible, but they are protected as soon as the Letter of Acceptances and Return is published. We also protect the names of important people outside the SCA; they are addressed in [[1]] Presumption below.

PN.3C. Standards for Identity Conflict:

From Pelican: Changes to SENA PN.3.C (May 2018 CL) C. Standards for Identity Conflict: To be clear of identity conflict, two names must be substantially different in both sound and appearance. Because conflict is a modern concept, we consider matters such as meaning, language, etymological origin, etc. to be irrelevant for conflict. Only sound and appearance are considered for difference. Thus, the Latinized form of a name may be clear of conflict with the vernacular form. While we do not go out of our way to consider variant pronunciations, we do consider important period and modern pronunciations of name elements.

To be substantially different, a pair of names must meet at least one standard for substantial difference in sound and at least one standard for substantial difference in appearance, as described below. Names may be different in sound under one standard and appearance under another standard. Names are compared as complete items, so that Lisa Betta Gonzaga conflicts with Lisabetta Gonzaga, although the elements are different.

Analyzing substantial changes in sound often requires counting sound changes. Under these standards, a single sound is defined as a consonant sound, vowel sound, or diphthong (two vowels combined in a single syllable).

For example, the English given name Ann has two sounds: the vowel sound represented by 'A', and the consonant 'n'. For example, in the classical Roman name Gaius, the 'a' and the 'i' combine to form a diphthong that has the same sound as the vowel in the English word my. Thus, the name Gaius has four sounds: the consonant represented by 'G', the diphthong 'ai', the vowel 'u', and the consonant 's'.

A change to appearance involves the insertion, deletion, or substitution of a letter or space. Changes to accents and punctuation do not contribute to substantial changes in appearance. Changes between upper- and lowercase also do not contribute to substantial changes in appearance.

C1. Changes to Two Syllables:

1. Changes to the Sound of Two Syllables: Names are substantially different in sound if changes in sound affect at least two syllables (including adding, removing, or reordering them). If the changes only affect adjacent sounds, they must affect more than two sounds to be considered under this allowance. Changes to any part of the name count, including articles and prepositions.

For example, here are some names that are substantially different in sound due to changes in more than one syllable. Richard Wainham is substantially different in sound from Richard Warman, because two syllables have changes to them. Similarly, the name Alana Red is substantially different in sound from Elena Reed, because at least two syllables change in sound. Note that the changes to the first and second vowels are not adjacent, because they are separated by the consonant sound 'l'.

For example, here are some names that are substantially different in sound due to changes that include adding or removing syllables. Maria le Smyth is substantially different in sound from Marian Smith, because the second name removes one syllable and changes the sound of another. Similarly, John de Aston is substantially different in sound from John Asson, because the second name removes one syllable and changes the sound of another. Anne Jones London is substantially different in sound from Anne Joan of London, because the second name changes the sound of one syllable and adds another. William Underthecliff is substantially different in sound from William Cliff, because the second name removes three syllables. Margaret atte Mor is substantially different in sound from Margaret de la Mor, because the change in prepositions affects the sound of two syllables. The name Margot de Blois is substantially different in sound from Margot du Bois, because both syllables in the byname have changed. Note that the change in the vowel from de to du is not adjacent to the removal of the 'l' from Blois, because these sounds are separated by the 'B' consonant sound.

For example, here are some pairs of names that are not substantially different in sound under this rule. The name Andrew Anser is not substantially different from the name Andrew Aster. The change from the 'n' to the 's' sound and the change from the 's' to the 't' sound are directly adjacent, so although these changes are in two different syllables, they are not enough to clear conflict. Similarly, the name Kathrin Tricker is not substantially different from the name Catlin Tricker. Again, the change from the 'th' sound to the 't' sound and the change from the 'r' sound to the 'l' sound are directly adjacent; moreover, the letters 'K' and 'C' represent the same sound.

C2. Substantial Change to One Syllable:

New Rule (As of December 2020 Cover Letter))

Names are substantially different in sound if a single syllable between them (excluding articles and prepositions, such as de and the) is changed in sound as described here. The addition or removal of a syllable makes two names substantially different in sound. Two names are also substantially different in sound if the sound of a syllable is substantially changed in one of the following ways. If a vowel and the consonant or part of the group of consonants on one side of this vowel are different between the two names, we consider a syllable to be substantially changed. When the sounds of each consonant or part of each group of consonants on both sides of a vowel are different, we also consider the syllable to be substantially changed.

For example, here are some names that are substantially different in sound due to addition or removal of one or more syllables. Both Maria Smith and Marian Smith are substantially different in sound from either Mary Smyth or Marie Smyth: Maria and Marian both have three syllables, while Mary and Marie have only two syllables, so in each case the number of syllables in the name is changed. Likewise, Phillip Hollins is substantially different in sound from Phillip Hollinshead, because the bynames have different numbers of syllables. Similarly, Dorrin Brady is substantially different in sound from Dorrin O Brady: the bynames have different numbers of syllables, and the relationship marker O is neither an article nor a preposition.

For example, here are some names that are substantially different in sound due to appropriate changes to the sound of a single syllable. Connor MacRobert is substantially different in sound from Conan MacRobert or Conall MacRobert, because the vowel and the final consonants of the second syllable of the given names are different in each case. For example, William Dulford is substantially different in sound from William Muttford, as the consonants on both sides of the vowel in the first syllable of the byname have been changed. Likewise, Mary Catford is substantially different in sound from Mary Radford, and Godric of London is substantially different in sound from Godwin of London. For example, Margerie Clutter is substantially different in sound from Margery Catter, because in the first syllable of the byname, the first group of consonants has changed from cl to c and the vowels are different. Elyas Misson is substantially different in sound from Elyas Smithson, because in the first syllable of the byname, the first group of consonants has changed from sm to m and the second consonant has changed from s to th.

For example, here are some names that are not substantially different in sound. Brian mac Duinn is not substantially different in sound from Brian mac Cuinn, because only one group of consonants in the final syllable of the byname has been changed. (In this case, the group consists of a single consonant.) Lucas Smith is not significantly different in sound from Lucas le Smyth. The only difference in sound is contributed by the word le, which is an article translating as "the" and thus cannot contribute difference under this rule. Mary Jones is not substantially different in sound from Marie Jones. While the most common modern pronunciation of the given names uses different vowel sounds for the first syllables of the given names and breaks the syllables in different places, one important late period and modern pronunciation makes both names the same (as MA-ree). Thus they conflict. While we do not go out of our way to consider variant pronunciations, we do consider important period and modern pronunciations of name elements. https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2020/12/20-12cl.html

[per the May 2018 CL]

Names are substantially different in sound if a single syllable between them (excluding articles and prepositions, such as de and the) is changed in sound as described here. The addition or removal of a syllable makes two names substantially different in sound. Two names are also substantially different in sound if the sound of a syllable is substantially changed in one of the following ways. If a vowel and the consonant or group of consonants on one side of this vowel is different between the two names, we consider a syllable to be substantially changed. When the sounds of the consonant or group of consonants on both sides of a vowel are completely different, we also consider the syllable to be substantially changed.

For example, both Maria Smith and Marian Smith are substantially different in sound from either Mary Smyth or Marie Smyth: Maria and Marian both have three syllables, while Mary and Marie have only two syllables, so in each case the number of syllables in the name is changed. Likewise, Phillip Hollins is substantially different in sound from Phillip Hollinshead, because the bynames have different numbers of syllables. Similarly, Dorrin Brady is substantially different in sound from Dorrin O Brady: the bynames have different numbers of syllables, and the relationship marker O is neither an article nor a preposition.

For example, Connor MacRobert is substantially different in sound from Conan MacRobert or Conall MacRobert, because the vowel and the final consonants of the second syllable of the given names are different in each case. For example, William Dulford is substantially different in sound from William Muttford, as the consonants on both sides of the vowel in the first syllable of the byname have been changed. Likewise, Mary Catford is substantially different in sound from Mary Radford, and Godric of London is substantially different in sound from Godwin of London.

For example, Brian mac Duinn is not substantially different in sound from Brian mac Cuinn, because only one group of consonants in the final syllable of the byname has been changed. (In this case, the group consists of a single consonant.) Margerie Clutter is not substantially different in sound from Margery Catter, because the given names sound identical and, although the first syllables of the bynames are different, the cl and c groups of consonants share a sound and the other consonant group is identical. Lucas Smith is not significantly different in sound from Lucas le Smyth. The only difference in sound is contributed by the word le, which is an article translating as "the" and thus cannot contribute difference under this rule. Mary Jones is not substantially different in sound from Marie Jones. While the most common modern pronunciation of the given names uses different vowel sounds for the first syllables of the given names and breaks the syllables in different places, one important late period and modern pronunciation makes both names the same (as MA-ree). Thus they conflict. While we do not go out of our way to consider variant pronunciations, we do consider important period and modern pronunciations of name elements.

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/05/18-05cl.html

C3. Substantial Change to the Sound of a Single-Syllable Name:

Two names with a comparable single-syllable name phrase are eligible for this rule. A pair of name phrases are said to be comparable if they both have the same position in the name, such as given name or first byname. Comparable single-syllable name phrases are generally substantially different in sound if a group of adjacent vowels or of adjacent consonants within a word are completely changed, so that it shares no sound in common. In rare cases, the sound may still be too similar for this rule to clear the conflict. On a case by case basis, two-syllable name phrases may be eligible for this rule, such as Harry and Mary.

For example, John Smith is substantially different in sound from Jane Smith. Anne Best is substantially different in sound from Anne West. Ellen Lang is substantially different in sound from Ellen Long. James Ed is substantially different in sound from James Lead. In each case, an adjacent group of vowels or consonants is completely changed in sound.

For example, Ema Deth is substantially different in sound from Gemma Deth. Although the given names both have two syllables, the change to the sound of the beginning of the names is enough to clear them under this rule.

For example, Matthew Joan is not substantially different in sound from Matthew Jones because the n and nz consonant groups share a sound. Richard Blott is not substantially different in sound from Richard Lot because the bl and l consonant groups share a sound. Katerine de la Mar is not substantially different in sound from Katerine de la Mor because they don't have comparable single-syllable name phrases and cannot use this rule.

[above updated per http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/05/18-05cl.html ]

4. Changes to the Appearance of Multiple Letters:

If a change in spelling (including addition or removal of letters and insertion or deletion of spaces) affects at least two letters or spaces, a name is substantially different in appearance.

For example, Miriam Jones is substantially different in appearance from both Mary Jones and Marie Jones. Harry Jones is also different from Mary Jones, because the first letter has been changed and another letter has been removed. However, Maria Jones is not substantially different in appearance from Marie Jones, because only one letter is changed.

For example, Colin L'Estrange is not substantially different in appearance from Colin Lestrange: the insertion of the apostrophe does not contribute to substantial difference, and no letters have been changed. The Norse names Sleitu-Einarr and Sléttu-Steinarr are substantially different from each other in appearance, but Sleitu-Einarr is not substantially different in appearance from Sléttu-Einarr, because the accent change does not contribute to difference, and thus only one letter has been changed.

[above updated per http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/05/18-05cl.html ]

5. Substantial Change to the Appearance of a Short Name Phrase:

Two names with a comparable one-word name phrase are eligible for this rule. A pair of name phrases are said to be comparable if they both have the same position in the name, such as given name or first byname. Changing one letter in words that both have four or fewer letters suffices for substantial difference in appearance. On a case by case basis, changes to the beginning of longer words, such as Harry and Larry, may also be eligible for this rule.

For example, Noe Wariner and Joe Wariner are substantially different in appearance, because we have changed one letter in a three-letter given name. However, Amice de Bailly is not substantially different in appearance from Avice de Bailly, because only one letter in a five-letter given name has changed. Mary Jones is not substantially different in appearance from Marry Jones, because one of the given names has more than four letters.

[above updated per http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/05/18-05cl.html ]

6. Examples of Personal Name Conflict Checks:

New Rule as of December 2020 Cover Letter

Here are some examples of pairs of names that are clear of identity conflict.

For example, Margot de Blois is substantially different in sound from Margot du Bois under PN.3.C.1, because both syllables in the byname have changed. The name Margot de Blois is substantially different in appearance from Margot du Bois under PN.3.C.4, because two or more letters have been inserted, deleted, or changed. In this case, changing from de Blois to du Bois changes one letter and deletes a second letter. Thus, Margot du Bois and Margot de Blois are clear of identity conflict.

For example, Maria Smith is substantially different in sound from Mary Smyth under PN.3.C.2, because the given names have different numbers of syllables. The name Maria Smith is substantially different in appearance from Mary Smyth under PN.3.C.4, because two or more letters (in this case, two letters in the given name and one in the byname) have been inserted, deleted, or changed. Thus, Maria Smith and Mary Smyth are clear of identity conflict.

For example, Anne Best is substantially different in sound from Anne West under PN.3.C.3, because the bynames are single syllables and an entire consonant group has been changed. The name Anne Best is substantially different in appearance from Anne West under PN.3.C.5, because one letter in a four-letter byname has changed. Thus, Anne Best and Anne West are clear of identity conflict.

Here are some examples of pairs of names that have an identity conflict.

For example, Richard Blott has an identity conflict with Richard Lot. Richard Blott is not substantially different in sound from Richard Lot under PN.3.C.1 because only one syllable has been changed, and thus the rule does not apply. Richard Blott is not substantially different in sound from Richard Lot under PN.3.C.2 because only one consonant group is changed. Moreover, the names are not substantially different in sound under PN.3.C.3 because the bl and l consonant groups share a sound, and thus the consonant group has not been completely changed. Because the names are not substantially different in sound under any rule, they have an identity conflict. As it happens, the names have a substantial difference in appearance under PN.3.C.4, because in changing from Blott to Lot two letters are deleted. However, because the names are not substantially different in sound and appearance, they are in conflict.

For example, Hilaris de la Barre has an identity conflict with Hilaria de la Barre. The names happen to be substantially different in sound under PN.3.C.2, because the given names have different numbers of syllables. However, Hilaris de la Barre is not substantially different in appearance from Hilaria de la Barre under PN.3.C.4, because only one letter is changed. Hilaris de la Barre is not substantially different from Hilaria de la Barre under PN.3.C.5, because the rule does not apply: the given names both have more than four letters, the change to the given names does not appear at the beginning of the names, and the bynames are identical. Because the names are not substantially different in sound and appearance, they are in conflict.

For example, Gene Berrie has an identity conflict with Jean Berrie. In a common modern pronunciation, the two names sound identical. While we do not go out of our way to consider variant pronunciations, we do consider important period and modern pronunciations of name elements. As it happens, the names have a substantial difference in appearance under both PN.3.C.4 and PN.3.C.5. However, because the names are not substantially different in sound and appearance, they are in conflict. https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2020/12/20-12cl.html

PN3D. Standards for Relationship Conflict:

To be clear of relationship conflict, the submitted name must not unmistakably imply close relationship with a protected person. This includes, but is not limited to, a claim to be the parent, child, or spouse of a protected person. An unmistakable implication generally requires the use of the entirety of a protected name. The relational marker does not need to be in the new submission for conflict to apply. That is, if a registered item includes a relational marker followed by a complete name and the new submission is the same as that complete name, it is in conflict. Names are still protected from relationship conflict even if grammar requires that the name be modified in order to demonstrate the relationship. Adding an element not in the protected name is generally enough to remove relationship conflict.

For example, Miryam bint Da'ud// is not an unmistakable claim to be the child of //Da'ud ibn Auda//, but //Miryam bint Da'ud ibn Auda// is. //Felicia uxor Willemi le Tailor// is an unmistakable claim to be the wife of a registered //Willemus le Tailor//, even though there is a change in appearance of the given name, because the change is necessitated by the grammar. However, //Felicia uxor William Taylor// is not an unmistakable claim to be the wife of //Willemus le Tailor//, as //William Taylor// and //Willemus le Tailor// are different enough to be clear of identity conflict under our rules. Similarly, //Llewelyn ap Owen// is an unmistakable claim to be the father of a registered //Morgan ap Llewelyn ap Owen.

For example, Mary Elizabeth Smith// is an unmistakable claim to be the daughter of //Elizabeth Smith// even though a relational marker is not included. This type of relationship conflict occurs only in languages, such as English, where unmarked patronymics or matronymics are used. However, //Giulia Maddelena di Giacomo// is not an unmistakable claim to be the daughter of //Maddelena di Giacomo//, as Italian did not mix marked (//di Giacomo//) and unmarked (//Maddelena//) relationships in the same name. Thus, in this case, //Maddelena must be considered a second given name.

PN3E. Registration with Permission to Conflict:

The owner of a registered item may grant permission to conflict to a new submission for either identity conflict or relationship conflict. Such permission may be granted either individually through a letter of permission to conflict or universally through a blanket letter of permission to conflict.

For identity conflict, any change to appearance and sound is sufficient to allow the registration of a personal name with a letter of permission to conflict. A submission identical to the registered item will not be registered even with permission to conflict.

For relationship conflict, a letter of permission to claim relationship from the owner of the registered item is sufficient to allow the registration of a personal name. This does not require demonstrating that the individual has that legal relationship. You can give a stranger permission to have a name that appears to be the name of your child, parent, or spouse.

---