English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
We all know proper nouns refer to a specific person, place, organization, ect. Are names that do not refer to specific entities still considered proper nouns such as Samantha in the example below? If not, is there a term for nouns that are normally proper but are not when used in a general sense?
Samantha is a feminine given name. (Source)
Samantha is a feminine given name.
Samantha is a proper noun whether it represents a real person or not. It is somebody's proper name, their first name.
One does not write, "There is a plethora of jennifers in school. Jennifer is a Proper noun.
The name of the room one sleeps in is a bedroom. It is not a proper noun. A city is not a proper noun, but how many Bethlehems are there? (a significant number.)
I don't think there is a way to get around a proper noun.
If I understand your question correctly, you are asking about whether generic names like "Samantha" can be considered proper nouns, given that they lack specificity.
I think the distinction between proper and common nouns is more about whether the noun in question is a name or not. So although "China" can refer to either a town in Maine, or a country in Asia, it is still considered a proper noun. The same goes for "Samantha" – though it lacks specificity, it is still a name and hence a proper noun.
