Is it acceptable to anglicise the name of a dead relative you're naming a child after?

[NeedingNameChangeForThis]

DH's brother died in a horrific childhood accident a few weeks before DH was born. Now that we've found out we're having a boy, we'd like to name him after his uncle.

It's a name with a lovely meaning, but contains phonemes not found in any Western language and thus is really only properly pronounceable to most native English speakers in its anglicised form. And so, we're torn between calling DS DBIL's actual name and by calling him the anglicised version. On the one hand, we want to honour DBIL by using the name he was called by the DPILs (now also deceased) and family and friends - but on the other hand, we don't want to give DS a name that not even his mummy can say correctly.

Any thoughts? Views of non-British MNers or those in cross-cultural relationships would be particular interesting. TIA.

I don't think there's any name that isn't changed to some degree when pronounced by someone who is not a native speaker of the language the name comes from. My own name is an Irish one that sounds slightly different when pronounced even by Irish people from different parts of Ireland. US and UK treatment of the vowels and the R that is in it varies enormously. I say go for the spelling that is closest to the original name if there's no existing English cognate (look at it carefully to anticipate British mispronunciation) and pronounce it properly yourselves. Other people are going to do it their own way no matter what you try if they are not familiar with the name. Even when they hear you say it, they will put their own spin on it.

Sorry, I'm boringly British. I'd either anglicise the name for a first name, or use it in original form as a middle name. But be aware that your DS will have to spell it out every time he encounters officialdom in the future.

I rather regret giving my DS2 a Gaelic middle name, he's dyslexic and only learned to spell it himself in his mid teens. But he didn't have to use it every day.

I have to spell my name out all the time (Indian forename, Swedish surname) and I don't find that a major problem. So does DP.

In your case, I would give him the 'real' name and think about how you want to pronounce it at home. I do appreciate the dilemma. It's a lovely thing to do.

We're a cross cultural family and our DC have names from my husband's culture that are easily pronounceable by my British family. So yes, I'd go for the anglicised version.

I think it's a beautiful gesture.

I am Danish Dh British we stuck with names that are pronounced the same way in England and Denmark or not known in the other country..

For you I would likely use the right name but call the child by the anglesised version or use iit as a middlename

Thanks for your thoughts. Still thinking it through, but leaning towards the anglicised version. DH uses an anglicised version of his own name (though most English speakers would manage the original), thereby providing some precedent for his family. Switching back to the original in his native language and country of origin has never presented a problem, and doesn't seem ever to have caused problems with passports or other officialdom.

But would we be disrespecting the memory of DBIL? That still worries me.

I dont think it's disrespectful. In France you can name children of the opposite sex after people by changing the name and no one thinks it's disrespectful - e.g. if we wanted to name a DD after one of DH's relatives we could call her Claudia/Claudine, and everyone would know it was in honour of "Claude" and it would be fine.

If you're going to be living in a country where it's difficult to pronounce I would say use the anglicised form. I'm sure family will understand.

What does your DH think of using the anglicised form?

With naming for the dead in Judaism, I think if the name has the same meaning e.g. Yiddish to Modern Hebrew, it counts as the same name. Is that what you are planning to do?
Judaism also has a nice tradition of adding Chaim (m)/Chaya (f) which means life to a relative's name (i.e. middle name) where the relative died from illness/in tragic circumstances.

Interesting! Without wishing to out myself, it's certainly a Biblical name of Hebrew origin, and one which anyone either religious or reasonably educated would recognise as such. Which is therefore another argument in favour of the anglicised form.

DH says he finds the anglicised form of the name hard to relate to, but would find mispronounciations of the original infuriating.

In that case I would go for using it as a middle name. Mind you is it really unpronounceable?

Im indian and DH is English.
We have chosen first names for our children that are Indian (as have DH's english surname) that are pronounceable.
I have a very rare indian name (only ever met one other girl with the same name) and find it sooo frustrting when explaining how it should be pronounced.
so i would suggest you go with the anglicised version as a first name. This way you are honouring your BIL however your son wont have duifficulty in other pronouncing his name

My name is the Irish version of a family name -- a very common practice in Ireland.

After your last post, I wonder if this particular name seems to be a bit loaded for your DH. It seems to be more about your late BIL' memory than giving a name to a living, breathing child. What if the child mispronounces it or wants to use a short version? Or what if the child can only pronounce an English approximation of the sounds?

One of my DDs gave herself a version of her (longish) family name that I would never have chosen -- it stuck and it's lovely; but it illustrates that you might not have complete control over the name even within your own family.

Is there an easily pronounceable short form of the name that could be used in everyday life that you like, if you go for the original version? We have this issue - but are saved by the fact that we planned from the start to use a short form that is really easy and that we also like as a name in its own right. We're very happy for our DC to have an unusual (and apparently hard to pronounce for English speakers!) name, because we (and her, in the future) can get around it by introducing with the short form - which is a short form of a few other names too and totally 'normal'.

If you have this option, maybe you could go for the original form and still avoid the pronounciation issues.

In terms of spelling, I have a perfectly normal name that has 2 popular spellings, and it was only frustrating when I was young and wondered why on earth nobody could spell it (leading to a hatred of the other spelling :p). It's fine now though. Also consider that Michael is a common name and I constantly had to ask how to spell it when I was younger. Most people are going to have trouble at some point.
In terms of pn, once you tell someone how to say something they generally remember it, especially if it's an unusual name. I knew a Levy in primary and I don't think a single teacher said it right the first time, but all but the most stubborn quickly got used to it.

If it's a traditional name, if unusual in this country, it should be fine. If you decide to go with the anglicised version, that would be honouring BIL while still making DS his own person, and my only worry would be that sometimes anglicised names can look cre8ive.