The person, whose name was Ben, lived in that house.

[Indigo]

Hi, I am wondering what is the difference between the following sentences?

1) The person, whose name was Ben, lived in that house.
2) The person, called Ben, lived in that house.
3) The person, named Ben, lived in that house.
4) The person, who was named Ben, lived in that house.

Do sentences 1 and 2 tell us that people used name Ben for the person?
Do sentences 3 and 4 tell us that the person was given the name Ben? (people are given names when they are born)

Thanks!

 

[emsr2d2]

Hi. I am wondering what is the difference between the following sentences is.

1) The person, whose name was Ben, lived in that house.
2) The person, called Ben, lived in that house.
3) The person, named Ben, lived in that house.
4) The person, who was named Ben, lived in that house.

Do sentences 1 and 2 tell us that people used the name Ben for the person?
Do sentences 3 and 4 tell us that the person was given the name Ben? (People are given names when they are born.)

Thanks! Unnecessary. Thank us after we help you, by adding the "Thanks" icon to any response you find useful.

They all refer to a person whose name was Ben. We have no way of knowing if that was the name he was given at birth or if he chose to change his name to Ben later in life. It's irrelevant.

None of the sentences are very natural. The most natural way of saying it is:

A person called Ben lived in that house.

Without any more context, there's no reason to use the definite article before "person".

There's no difference in meaning between "a person whose name was Ben", "a person called Ben", "a person named Ben", and "a person who was named Ben".

 

[Tarheel]

Absent any reason to do otherwise, I would just say Ben lived in that house.

Most people would assume "Ben" was his name.

 

[Indigo]

There's no difference in meaning between "a person whose name was Ben", "a person called Ben", "a person named Ben", and "a person who was named Ben".

So, if I provided a little bit more context for sentence 4, would the meaning of the verb "name" change? For example:

4) A person, who was named Ben in 1997, lived in that house.

Would it mean that the person was given the name Ben in 1997 and not that people used to call him Ben in 1997?

I am trying to find out when does the phrase "was named" mean using a name for a person and when does it mean that a person was given a name, for example, during christening ceremony.

 

[Tarheel]

@Indigo You did not provide additional context. You simply rephrased the sentence.

If "was named" means he was given that name then then it is a verb.

The words are at your service. That is, they are there for you to use to say what you want to say.

Presumably, you know what you want to say. Form your words for that purpose.

Don't ask me what you have said. That's backwards! Instead, form the thought you wish to express into a sentence. Then ask if you have done it right. Ask for suggestions for making it better.

 

[Skrej]

So, if I provided a little bit more context for sentence 4, would the meaning of the verb "name" change? For example:

4) A person, who was named Ben in 1997, lived in that house.

Would it mean that the person was given the name Ben in 1997 and not that people used to call him Ben in 1997? He was officially named 'Ben' in 1997. Since Ben's already a short form of Benjamin, that's probably what people also called him, but we can't know for certain.

I am trying to find out when does the phrase "was named" mean using a name for a person and when does it mean that a person was given a name, for example, during christening ceremony.

I"m not exactly sure what you're getting at, but I think you may be looking for something like the difference between 'named' and 'called', as well as the difference between a name and a nickname.

'Named' means the person was given a particular name. The verb 'called' however, allows for the possibility that the name they commonly use may be different from the official name listed on their birth certificate. However, it doesn't automatically mean that their common name is different from their birth name.

His parents named him James, but everyone calls him Jimmy. ('Jimmy' is a nickname, but his official name is James.)
He's been called 'Buster' ever since his sister once yelled, "You better watch it Buster!" ('Buster' is a nickname - we don't know what his true name is.)
His parents decided to call her Mary Sue, after both her grandmothers. ('Mary Sue' is her official name - she may or may not have a nickname.)

There are other ways to indicate that a person goes by some name other that what's officially listed on their birth certificate.
His real name's Timothy Johansen, but he's known locally as 'Cotton'. ('Cotton' is a nickname, but his real name is Timothy.)
He goes by Slim Walker, on account of his always having been overweight, ever since he was a teenager.(We're given an explanation for the nickname, but not his true name.)

In short, you can't really know for sure whether a name is a "real" name or a nickname. English, like most other languages, does have several common diminutive forms for some common names, such as 'Chuck' (Charles), 'Betty' (Elizabeth), 'Jim' (James), Bill(William), and so on. Sometimes however, parents may just go ahead and list the short form for the official name. That's what my folks did with me - since they knew everyone would be using the common nickname, that's what they put on the birth certificate.

You just really can't tell for sure whether the name they go by is their official name or a nickname, unless it's something that must obviously be a nickname. For example, it's highly unlikely that his parents really named him 'Fats Smith', so it's a safe bet that what people call him isn't his given name.

 

[Indigo]

According to what emsr2d2 wrote, there is no difference in meaning between "whose name was Ben", "called Ben", "named Ben" and "who was named Ben". So, my understanding is they all mean one thing, which is that people used the name Ben for him (Ben was his official name). However, Skrej wrote:

'Named' means the person was given a particular name.

His parents named him James, but everyone calls him Jimmy. ('Jimmy' is a nickname, but his official name is James.)

So, in the above sentence it is clear that parents gave him the name James (not called him James) but now everyone calls him Jimmy.

However, in my examples 3 and 4, the meaning is a little bit ambiguous to me.

3) The person, named Ben, lived in that house.
4) The person, who was named Ben, lived in that house.

Do "named" and "who was named" mean to use the name Ben for the person or to give the person the name Ben?

 

[5jj]

3) The person, named Ben, lived in that house.
4) The person, who was named Ben, lived in that house.

You have already been told that neither of those sentences is very natural. Forget them.

 

[Tarheel]

@Indigo If they are your sentences you surely know what you want them to mean. How could there be any ambiguity?

 

[jutfrank]

I am trying to find out when does the phrase "was named" mean using a name for a person and when does it mean that a person was given a name, for example, during christening ceremony.

Yes, I understand what you're asking. You're essentially asking when the word 'named' works as a verb with the sense of 'given a name (to someone)'.

It works easily in an active voice, so I suggest you stick to using it in active voice only, like this:

His parents named him Jim.

Since the sentence is in an active voice, it's nice and clear that the parents had agency in giving their son a name. A passive voice is possible too, and would look like this:

He was named Jim (by his parents).

In this sentence, the 'by'-agent phrase by his parents makes it clear that 'named' is meant as a passive verb. However, without it, it would probably be read with a different meaning:

He was named Jim.

This would most like mean that he had the name Jim and not that he was given the name Jim.