A recent New York Times article includes the following sentences:
Rinpoche is an honoriffic, akin to “the Reverend,” right? Shouldn’t it be “…Tenzin Rinpoche said…” or “…Mr. Tenzin said…”? Is this really the house style for the NYT? Does the Wall Street Journal (the outher major journal to use courtesy titles) do the same?
If so, I want to be called “Ms. Doctor.”
Remember, this is the same publication that refers to the singer Meat Loaf as Mr. Loaf.
But the singer born Marvin Lee Aday refers to himself professionally (and personally, I believe) as Meat Loaf, called Meat informally and Mr. Loaf when you just have to give him that little bit of extra respect.
Do they ever refer to Kim Jong Il as Mr. Il?
(For the uninitiated: In Korean names, the family name comes first, not last. Kim Jong Il is the son of Kim Il Sung and happens to have the very common Korean family name Kim. It would be most correct to refer to both of them as Mr. Kim, if the name must be shortened that way.)
Rinpoche isn’t exactly an honoriffic equivalent to “Reverend”.
The Wiki entry has: The title is generally reserved for tulkus (incarnate lamas) and those recognized by the proper authorities within a lineage as “choje lamas” (“superior dharma masters”).
Basically, it’s not like you can study to become a Rinpoche (another spelling is Rimpoche). Rather, Rinpoche’s are generally recognized reincarnates, of whom the Dalai Lama is the most famous.
To refer to him as Mr. Rinpoche is incorrect. Especially as he’s often with the Dalai Lama, who is also a Rinpoche (Kunga Rinpoche although unsure on the spelling). I’m sure there are a few other Rinpoche in residence in Dharamsala.
I doubt it. It sounds like just ignorance to me.
Rinpoche is a name though, isn’t it? I was under the impression that it was a name but, like Tenzin, was mostly given to monks.
Rinpoche is not a name. It is a honorific used for these special reincarnate lamas. Just like you wouldn’t say Mr. Pope (although I know that there are people surnamed “pope” or “bishop”.
I’m glad I’m not completely off base! I looked up the Wikipedia article China Guy linked to, but it didn’t have anything about style. I thought “Reverend” was the closest English title to compare it to. Maybe “Cardinal” would have worked better, but then I’d have gotten into the whole issue of Lating naming conventions!
I linked to the article on-line before it appeared in the paper (it is dated April 26). It appears that since I linked to it the parts I quoted have been removed. I doubt they cut it because of the style issue, but it makes me wonder. . . .
The question immediately occurred to me whether the NYT has ever referred to Mr. Lama as such.
I suspect it is just something the copy editor at the Times missed.
Wait… you mean he’s not Kim Jong the Second? 