My advice is do it for yourself, however you want to, whatever you like.

I've written and self-published two books. The first one got a few positive replies and one person said it was a favorite. The second one got bupkis. I didn't write them first for others, but I'm glad at least a few people liked one of them. I wouldn't change a thing about the second one, even though I know it's too long, and goes into too much detail, I repeat things, and it has two endings. It's what I wanted to write and I'm happy with it.

Make yourself happy, and if other people like it, that's gravy.

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.

[…]in a story I am writing in said setting.

There is a trap that I sometimes stumble upon when reading books and novels. Authors are so proud of their worlds that they cram exposition at every opportunity, and it kills all joy from reading making it at most mediocre book.

Parroting one tumblr post: "Write as if reader already knows the world."

You have a character named: "Al Banian" Do you need an explanation for their name? no. Do you have one? cool, but under no circumstances should you mention it to the reader for the sake of it. If it will come naturally in the plot then sure, add the explanation as you already have one.

Feel free to ask questions.

Who do you write for? What is a purpose of your writing?

Do I really need an explanation why there is a guy named “Al Banian” and why the name is actually a remnant from a completely different reality?

And the setting ended up with almost 5000 years of extensive lore, and you need to be familiar with several different philosophies and cultures to understand any of it.

I’m getting to the point where the lore is so complex it starts to sound stupid if you don’t know all the details.

Yesh, stop world building, doing that is just silly. XD /s

I mean, it matters insofar as to whether or not it would be thematically appropriate for me to call him Al.

Otherwise, if you're having fun, who cares?

As I'm sure as many others have, I've spent a lot of time with background too.

What I might do is release a version that's for a typical reader, i.e. one who's not as interested in my story as I am; and then release a background to it later for the few who might be interested.

Maybe just tell the readers what Al Banian does or did, and if they're interested, they can read up about him in your notes.

There's also the possibility that if you don't explain, others might come up with their own, and a few of those might be interesting.

A lot of my favorite works have worlds that feel like you're barely getting a glimpse of them. The author has something much bigger than you'll get to see, and it makes the worlds feel alive.

That said, I've dropped a lot of books because there's some sort of explanation of the world. By the time I care enough about a world enough to sit through an explanation I no longer need one.

If your work does well people may clamor for all this extra stuff you made. Maybe then you can publish it. But even then I'd be very cautious. Star Wars was partially killed by explanation. If something that beloved can't bear explanation, that's something to keep in mind.