View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

Yes, Sabrina, I do
as I was just saying below, they seem like mere word names to me, perfectly legitimate. Not trying to make a fuss over it.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

fine by me, lol just curious [m]that are more word names now that I think of it, kind of like place names IMO, many people dislike them because they aren't "names", but I personally look at it as they are "names" of a place, so there are names IMO.
vote up1
You and I clearly have a broader sense of what are "legitimate" names than others mightObviously you and I feel, if I may say, that legitimacy is largely conferred by the namer, regardless of others' opinions, though I know I don't, and I presume you don't, choose names that others consider "illegitimate" just to piss them off. ;pI don't intend to speak for anyone else, including you, when I say that, to me, Dakota and Cheyenne are as legitimate as Saxon (tribe name) and Paris (place name). Nor do I intend to start an argument (though I don't see why it's such a big deal that it could start one).
vote up1
oh I agree good points :)
vote up1
Yes, the names Sakota and Cheyenne are as legitimate as Saxon or Paris but what I think some people might want to convey is whether they should be used as names or not based on the offense it may/may not create for people.
I think it is good that you mentioned other names besides tribal names though.
vote up1