+0
"Charleston, West Virginia, was named for Charles Clendenin..."

Please tell me what difference between name for and name after. And can we replace named for with named after in the given sentence above?

Thank you!
And Happy New Year!!!
+0
I would disagree slightly with NC.

1. 'Named after'

'My son Charles is named after his grandfather' – i.e. the son's name is the same as the grandfather's.

2. 'Named for'

'Abies fraseri is named for the plant-collector John Fraser' – i.e. the plant's name is derived from Fraser.

AmE usage may be different; I get the impression that #2 is often used with the sense of #1 in N. America.

MrP
Comments  
You should, indeed, use "named after", as it means "named in honour of", thus:

"Charlston, West Virginia, was named after Charles Clendin..."

Is the right choice, "named for", in my opinion, due to the preposition, would mean "named on behalf of..."

NON C
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
 MrPedantic's reply was promoted to an answer.
Emotion: smile Thank you!

I am with MrP. It's more convincing.

1. 'Named after'

'My son Charles is named after his grandfather' – i.e. the son's name is the same as the grandfather's.

2. 'Named for'

'Abies fraseri is named for the plant-collector John Fraser' – i.e. the plant's name is derived from Fraser.
Hmm. I can't hear the difference. It sounds like special pleading! As British I'd say 'after' in both cases. 'Named for' is wholly foreign to my ears.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.