New Post
Search
HelpRe: I don't mind it. Heck, the ancient Romans already named their children numbers. (nt)
in reply to a message by Lily
*groan*
This is a little frustrating. Are you trolling me? Lol, it's kinda fun.
Nevaeh is magic because it's spelled backwards.
I didn't SAY someone didn't put thought into a name because he chose Seven instead of John. Isn't it more like, a person would put a great deal more thought into Seven, than John?
Marys or Johns back in the day were named because it was a name that fit in and didn't cause trouble
Yeah ... this is I was trying to get at in my reply which was to Ludwig's comment. Why is "not causing trouble" not desirable any more? You sound as dismissive of traditional naming, as you seem to accuse me of being about nontraditional naming. I think Braylynn and Seven's parents choose those names, based on sound and image, for reasons that might seem superficially lame, but actually are NOT entirely numbskulled. I think there's a reason why such names come off as insubstantial ... but there's also a reason why parents would want a name that is not insubstantial per se, but substantially insubstantial. I don't think I can explain myself very well, I'm sorry - but please, stop implying that I am disrespecting people who name their kids Nevaeh, Braylynn, Seven or whatever. I'm not better than them. That's not what this conversation was about, for me.
Ludwig was grouping Nevaeh and Braylynn together because they are together in the category "not traditional" - like, they don't honor certain values? It's not that they are the same style. She was thinking about the arc of history I think ... thinking about how the traditional names that people (which people? well duh, the mainstream ...) have used proudly for centuries - like a piece of heritage so ingrained that it wasn't even thought about - lost their appeal for so many folks. It loses appeal because it isn't seen as beneficial - for whatever reason, we were wondering. If I understood her right.
I'm pretty sure many Emilys or Chloes were just name because their parents loved the sound
Yep, but they had something else in mind too - not more than, but different from, the parents of Braylynn or Seven.
If I met someone named Seven or Reef or something or I would expect an interesting story or reason behind it that I wouldn't necessarily with Emma or Jacob
That's exactly what I was talking about. Expect an interesting story. I'm not saying that's negative, but neither is it positive. I'm not passing judgment. I'm just thinking about how and why. I tend to think very negatively about the why, but not about the motivation itself or the people who have it.
I don't have anything against Nevaeh or Braylynn either. I don't have anything against Seven. I personally don't like them because of the particular impressions they give me. But I have nothing against non-traditional naming. I'm curious about it. My first couple posts in this subthread, were about my personal reaction to Seven, not about whether or not people who name their kid Seven are right or wrong.
It's not unfair to assume someone was named for image just because he has a new name like Seven and not something that is centuries old like Hannah. Seven is an image-name. Naming for image is just what a lot of people do today, even some traditional namers name in part for image (Emily's parents liked the sound). I named my own daughter for image. The idea that traditional values = superior is less popular, and that is what (I think) Ludwig and I were talking about.
She said "symptoms of having not very many problems. Societally, not personally. It becomes less important to cling to something and pass it down."
Not having very many problems, to me, means the same as not getting much benefit from the values expressed by using traditional names. Less perceived threat from "not fitting in." Getting more benefit instead, from offering the world a hook to (what should be, but often isn't really) an interesting story - something new, something not status quo, something other. Since a role in the old shared story is not as much associated as it was, with something people feel is good in their lives.
This is a little frustrating. Are you trolling me? Lol, it's kinda fun.
Nevaeh is magic because it's spelled backwards.
I didn't SAY someone didn't put thought into a name because he chose Seven instead of John. Isn't it more like, a person would put a great deal more thought into Seven, than John?
Marys or Johns back in the day were named because it was a name that fit in and didn't cause trouble
Yeah ... this is I was trying to get at in my reply which was to Ludwig's comment. Why is "not causing trouble" not desirable any more? You sound as dismissive of traditional naming, as you seem to accuse me of being about nontraditional naming. I think Braylynn and Seven's parents choose those names, based on sound and image, for reasons that might seem superficially lame, but actually are NOT entirely numbskulled. I think there's a reason why such names come off as insubstantial ... but there's also a reason why parents would want a name that is not insubstantial per se, but substantially insubstantial. I don't think I can explain myself very well, I'm sorry - but please, stop implying that I am disrespecting people who name their kids Nevaeh, Braylynn, Seven or whatever. I'm not better than them. That's not what this conversation was about, for me.
Ludwig was grouping Nevaeh and Braylynn together because they are together in the category "not traditional" - like, they don't honor certain values? It's not that they are the same style. She was thinking about the arc of history I think ... thinking about how the traditional names that people (which people? well duh, the mainstream ...) have used proudly for centuries - like a piece of heritage so ingrained that it wasn't even thought about - lost their appeal for so many folks. It loses appeal because it isn't seen as beneficial - for whatever reason, we were wondering. If I understood her right.
I'm pretty sure many Emilys or Chloes were just name because their parents loved the sound
Yep, but they had something else in mind too - not more than, but different from, the parents of Braylynn or Seven.
If I met someone named Seven or Reef or something or I would expect an interesting story or reason behind it that I wouldn't necessarily with Emma or Jacob
That's exactly what I was talking about. Expect an interesting story. I'm not saying that's negative, but neither is it positive. I'm not passing judgment. I'm just thinking about how and why. I tend to think very negatively about the why, but not about the motivation itself or the people who have it.
I don't have anything against Nevaeh or Braylynn either. I don't have anything against Seven. I personally don't like them because of the particular impressions they give me. But I have nothing against non-traditional naming. I'm curious about it. My first couple posts in this subthread, were about my personal reaction to Seven, not about whether or not people who name their kid Seven are right or wrong.
It's not unfair to assume someone was named for image just because he has a new name like Seven and not something that is centuries old like Hannah. Seven is an image-name. Naming for image is just what a lot of people do today, even some traditional namers name in part for image (Emily's parents liked the sound). I named my own daughter for image. The idea that traditional values = superior is less popular, and that is what (I think) Ludwig and I were talking about.
She said "symptoms of having not very many problems. Societally, not personally. It becomes less important to cling to something and pass it down."
Not having very many problems, to me, means the same as not getting much benefit from the values expressed by using traditional names. Less perceived threat from "not fitting in." Getting more benefit instead, from offering the world a hook to (what should be, but often isn't really) an interesting story - something new, something not status quo, something other. Since a role in the old shared story is not as much associated as it was, with something people feel is good in their lives.
This message was edited 5/25/2012, 9:14 AM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
2
Replies
Haha no, I just realized that we had the Evan conversation. I remember I had it but not with whom :P
No, not at all. I like many classic names such as James, Aaron and Luke.
'Not causing trouble' is not desirable when it's the only reason to choose a name. Just my opinion, of course. But my friend who was named Anna was almost named Ivy and her parents simply decided on Anna because they thought it would cause her less trouble in life (I think they were especially worried about 'Poison Ivy' jokes, because a movie of that name came out before she was born) and I just think that's kind of sad because they liked Ivy more but wanted to be safe. I mean to each their own, I realize they had their child's best interest at heart so you can't argue with that.
Oh I get what you mean now, about the 'not very many problems' thing. I kind of agree. I think some time ago it was more desirable to fit in than stand out. I remember reading about naming in the 1600s in England and people would often be named after members of society they knew who were slightly better off in the hope that they would become the child's godmother/godfather and that the child could benefit from them. Also it wasn't unusual for family members to have the same name and just a different nickname. I guess that wouldn't be popular today.
Oh and sorry if I made you feel like I was trolling you :P I just like many unusual names (I love classic names too) and feel a bit sad about them not getting so much love here :P Nothing personal, really.
No, not at all. I like many classic names such as James, Aaron and Luke.
'Not causing trouble' is not desirable when it's the only reason to choose a name. Just my opinion, of course. But my friend who was named Anna was almost named Ivy and her parents simply decided on Anna because they thought it would cause her less trouble in life (I think they were especially worried about 'Poison Ivy' jokes, because a movie of that name came out before she was born) and I just think that's kind of sad because they liked Ivy more but wanted to be safe. I mean to each their own, I realize they had their child's best interest at heart so you can't argue with that.
Oh I get what you mean now, about the 'not very many problems' thing. I kind of agree. I think some time ago it was more desirable to fit in than stand out. I remember reading about naming in the 1600s in England and people would often be named after members of society they knew who were slightly better off in the hope that they would become the child's godmother/godfather and that the child could benefit from them. Also it wasn't unusual for family members to have the same name and just a different nickname. I guess that wouldn't be popular today.
Oh and sorry if I made you feel like I was trolling you :P I just like many unusual names (I love classic names too) and feel a bit sad about them not getting so much love here :P Nothing personal, really.
This message was edited 5/25/2012, 10:21 AM
1