cratylus   

other name of Scamandrius could only have been given to him by the
women.
Her. That may be inferred.
Soc. And must not Homer have imagined the Trojans to be wiser than
their wives?
Her. To be sure.
Soc. Then he must have thought Astyanax to be a more correct name for
the boy than Scamandrius?
Her. Clearly.
Soc. And what is the reason of this? Let us consider:- does he not
himself suggest a very good reason, when he says,
For he alone defended their city and long walls? This appears to be a
good reason for calling the son of the saviour king of the city which
his father was saving, as Homer observes.
Her. I see.
Soc. Why, Hermogenes, I do not as yet see myself; and do you?
Her. No, indeed; not I.
Soc. But tell me, friend, did not Homer himself also give Hector his
name?
Her. What of that?
Soc. The name appears to me to be very nearly the same as the name of
Astyanax- both are Hellenic; and a king (anax) and a holder (ektor)
have nearly the same meaning, and are both descriptive of a king; for
a man is clearly the holder of that of which he is king; he rules, and
owns, and holds it. But, perhaps, you may think that I am talking
nonsense; and indeed I believe that I myself did not know what I meant
when I imagined that I had found some indication of the opinion of
Homer about the correctness of names.
Her. I assure you that I think otherwise, and I believe you to be on
the right track.
Soc. There is reason, I think, in calling the lion's whelp a lion, and
the foal of a horse a horse; I am speaking only of the ordinary course
of nature, when an animal produces after his kind, and not of
extraordinary births;- if contrary to nature a horse have a calf, then
I should not call that a foal but a calf; nor do I call any inhuman
birth a man, but only a natural birth. And the same may be said of
trees and other things. Do you agree with me?
Her. Yes, I agree.
Soc. Very good. But you had better watch me and see that I do not play
tricks with you. For on the same principle the son of a king is to be
called a king. And whether the syllables of the name are the same or
not the same, makes no difference, provided the meaning is retained;
nor does the addition or subtraction of a letter make any difference
so long as the essence of the thing remains in possession of the name
and appears in it.
Her. What do you mean?
Soc. A very simple matter. I may illustrate my meaning by the names of
letters, which you know are not the same as the letters themselves
with the exception of the four e, u, o (short), o (long); the names of
the rest, whether vowels or consonants, are made up of other letters
which we add to them; but so long as we introduce the meaning, and
there can be no mistake, the name of the letter is quite correct.
Take, for example, the letter beta- the addition of e, t, a, gives no
offence, and does not prevent the whole name from having the value
which the legislator intended- so well did he know how to give the
letters names.
Her. I believe you are right.
Soc. And may not the same be said of a king? a king will often be the
son of a king, the good son or the noble son of a good or noble sire;
and similarly the off spring of every kind, in the regular course of
nature, is like the parent, and therefore has the same name. Yet the
syllables may be disguised until they appear different to the ignorant
person, and he may not recognize them, although they are the same,
just as any one of us would not recognize the same drugs under