Thread:Superdadsuper/@comment-28732558-20161115223031/@comment-5175866-20161116020701

Interesting suggestion. This is not something I feel I can just add so I am going to bring up in the admin meeting on Friday. There are a few reasons why this isn't so simple. The biggest thing is that not all people are described in the Hebrew language but may be described in Greek or Aramaic. We would have to use wording for that field that is inclusive all the languages. There is also the possibility of names not being of either three (though it may not be very often), for example if the name was Roman.

Also name in the original isn't as clear as the average person would think. For the person defining this it isn't neccessairly clear if this is suppose to be what the name means, a transliteration or the actual text itself. I would say this probably means the second.

The idea is interesting, but there are several factors to consider both linguistically and praticality (how necessary is it) for it to be included. It will be discussed this Friday and I will respond to you when I have the result.