If it matters for you, then its good, and it matters, but almost inevitably, if you feel like you have to explain literally any of it when you go to write a story in this world, you are probably doing it wrong. And what I mean by that, is that if its important to you that there is a reason why the guy is named "Al Banian", then its important; but it shouldn't be important to the story. Or rather, a person in this world is going to take this thing as self evident; a participant in this world doesn't need it explained to them.

And this separates good scifi/ fantasy writing from bad writing. If its important *to you that an explanation for why the name Al Banian exists, then do that. And if its not necessary for your writing process, then don't do that. And I'll give two examples. Tolkien created a world first, and then wrote a story within that world. They seem more similar to you in terms of their overall process. Massive in scale and scope. Every part has an explanation, every name has a meaning. Maps, timelines, family trees, evolution, its all in there. And most importantly: Almost none of it makes it into the actual stories the world was used to support. The characters, individually and collectively take these things to be self evident. Gandalf doesn't need the 3000 year history of the world explained to them; its self evident. And because Gandalf, the character in the readers head understands that this is the way the world is, so too does the reader. If Gandalf understands it to be some way or for some reason, then its sufficient for the reader. Whats most important is that it doesn't break the suspension of disbelief.

A contrasting approach is Le Guin. She practically doesn't bother with world building whatsoever. The Ekumen exist, and there is (maybe?) a broader world that these stories are set it, but most importantly, that broader world never interferes with the story she is trying to tell, because thats what the reader is actually engaging with. She plays fast and loose with the lore. Timelines don't make sense. The politics are inconsistent. Even the technologies don't line up. Who cares? It detracts not one iota because you aren't reading a history of the Ekumen. You are reading a story which is happening on Gethen, and that story is engaging. And in the exact same manner that Tolkien feels the need to build an entire world, and then populates it with characters, Le Guin builds characters and a story, and then populates only the most necessary components of the world to support the story. And she gives not two wiffs of stinky piss about it being consistent. And both work. Both create worlds which are messy, and real, and believable, and which, most importantly don't tax readers in their suspension of disbelief.

If you are dragging your reader out of your story to explain the linguistic evolution of "Al Banian", and it stops them from believing your story because now you are explaining some tangential thing that people in your would should just understand as a given, you've failed in your task. But how you approach that task, if you need to be like Tolkien and build the world first, then tell a story within it, thats great. Or if you are like Le Guin, and you need to find the story to tell, and then you modify the world to support that story, thats also fine. Its your process, do what works for you. But don't feel the need to explain things which shouldnt be explained. Compare the star wars OT to the later material. The OT never tries to explain anything. Not why it is the way it is, not how the force works, barely who the Jedi are. And its great. It all works. Some knightly order from a bigone era? Good enough. Keep it moving Luke. The latter material fails precisely because it feels like it needs to explain itself to the reader. And in doing so it ruins the suspension of disbelief. Its ok to keep it mysterious; it actually makes for better writing to not necessary have everything fully explained.