New Post
Search
HelpRe: I would like to ask your opinions and naming styles.
in reply to a message by Francisinfp5w4
Too long of a question, tbh but I tried to answer it anyway. You put in so much effort. You help me procrastinate while I finish my coffee.
Nature names - I generally like them; tons of classic names are actually nature names originally. I definitely prefer ones that seem to allude to a symbolism that seems namey to me, though - reminds me of an idea that supports or elevates human life, or is admirable or pleasant. (River, Summer, Sky) If I don't think a nature name is namey like that, it's not necessarily "bad" to me - because other people will have other associations, and I can imagine how they might think it's namey. I just don't like it, myself. (Ocean, Winter, Ridge)
Gem names - same sort of thing, I like them most if there's an allusion I can detect, and it's not just "bling." Diamond, Amber, Pearl have allusions imo; Ruby, Sapphire, Opal do not, and so they seem more just sensuous to me and not as namey.
Virtues ... well, if older virtue names are still considered virtues, then they're good enough as names imo. Some old ones lose their appeal imo as cultural context changes (Chastity? Felicity?). But often the name is familiar enough that it doesn't matter what it means anymore. I'd like to know what you mean by "modern virtue names." ?? What are they? You mean like Heavenly or Moxie or Royal? I don't even think they are virtue names. Those names are more like image-names to me - not in the same class as Prudence, Grace, Amity, Verity. I mean, it'd be dumb to say that I don't like Prudence because it means prudence - because prudence is an actual virtue by definition, even today - but Royal isn't like that. (not that I can't appreciate it as a name, I'm just saying it's not really a virtue name imo)
Surnames ... I don't like them when I perceive them as sounding too impersonal, or worse, deliberately impersonal. Some occupation names seem kinda bad, if they don't evoke / allude to anything else - like Porter. Sometimes surnames resemble family name-dropping (like when someone names a baby with the surname of a wealthy relative, in an attempt to assert the association socially and create a status-image, and perhaps obtain an inheritance) - which comes off sort of pretentious to me. So it depends on the name, and whether it's familiar to me as a first-name, as well as a surname.
Places ... generally make okay names. My response to them depends a bit on my perception of a place's reputation. Allusions and sound matter more than that it's a place, or whether it's a continent, country, city, etc. I don't care for -ton names, but it's because they seem surnamey (impersonal or pretentious). Names like Denver, Sierra, Asia, India, Ireland, Egypt, Holland, Zaire, Alaska, even Chicago and Brooklyn ... they seem normal enough, where I live. I don't hate them - I like some more than others, but not because they're place-names.
Fandom names - I respond to them about the same way as I do to invented names. If they sound good to me, or don't. Just personal taste. But I disapprove of names after characters that have a sexualizing or violent depiction. Yuck. It doesn't really affect my impression of a person who is named after, say, an anime girl drawn with an exaggerated figure, or a TV character who tortures people to death - but I think giving such a name to a child is in rancid taste, on the part of their parents.
I don't really judge other-language / cross-cultural names unless I know they are given by someone who is culturally a lot like myself. I mean, it's fine - I actually have a young relative named Mila, whose family is all American midwestern protestants, not remotely Slavic ... and it's fine, I just think it's a bit shallow, like they basically exploited the existence of other languages to get a "fresh" name they liked the sound of. Also probably inspired by Mila Kunis, which makes it additionally seem shallow to me. But the name is fine. Whatever
If I'm giving a name to honor an ancestor I'd only use their actual first name, or maybe a different gender form of it, if a traditional one exists. If I alter the name then I am honoring my own memory of the ancestor, and it's about me and what I like. I think it's fine to do that, I just wouldn't call it honoring an ancestor.
I prefer characters to be named realistically for their setting, and if it's not realistic, it has to make sense within the story. Like if a teenager is named Patricia in a story set right now, I expect there to be something about that (like maybe she discovers she is of noble blood) otherwise it is distracting. Names that are very unrealistic (like a 70 year old Nevaeh), I take to be indicators that the world in the story is not meant to be the real world.
How much I like a name, I think is based on a mixture of all the things I associate it with, consciously and unconsciously. Sound, meaning, sense-associations, cultural associations, word-associations, gender associations, people I've seen the name on, popularity ... it's just personal taste.
I like names from a lot of categories but I feel like it's not that wide a variety. see my name list and see whether you agree.
There are names I like in the sense "I would name my baby that."
Then there are names I like in the sense "I would appreciate it on a person, though I would not name a baby it."
Ones I would use, I enjoy aesthetically, and feel like they seem appropriate to my family's place in society, basically. Whatever that means... It's pretty flexible because I'm American, and like it or not, sloppy cultural boundaries are part of American-ness. I can't describe the boundaries of my personal comfort-zone in simple terms, but there are boundaries. Some of those boundaries come directly from my existing marriage - if I were married to someone different, it'd be different, because my family would be different.
Names I appreciate, might be any name I like for any reason.
- mirfak
Nature names - I generally like them; tons of classic names are actually nature names originally. I definitely prefer ones that seem to allude to a symbolism that seems namey to me, though - reminds me of an idea that supports or elevates human life, or is admirable or pleasant. (River, Summer, Sky) If I don't think a nature name is namey like that, it's not necessarily "bad" to me - because other people will have other associations, and I can imagine how they might think it's namey. I just don't like it, myself. (Ocean, Winter, Ridge)
Gem names - same sort of thing, I like them most if there's an allusion I can detect, and it's not just "bling." Diamond, Amber, Pearl have allusions imo; Ruby, Sapphire, Opal do not, and so they seem more just sensuous to me and not as namey.
Virtues ... well, if older virtue names are still considered virtues, then they're good enough as names imo. Some old ones lose their appeal imo as cultural context changes (Chastity? Felicity?). But often the name is familiar enough that it doesn't matter what it means anymore. I'd like to know what you mean by "modern virtue names." ?? What are they? You mean like Heavenly or Moxie or Royal? I don't even think they are virtue names. Those names are more like image-names to me - not in the same class as Prudence, Grace, Amity, Verity. I mean, it'd be dumb to say that I don't like Prudence because it means prudence - because prudence is an actual virtue by definition, even today - but Royal isn't like that. (not that I can't appreciate it as a name, I'm just saying it's not really a virtue name imo)
Surnames ... I don't like them when I perceive them as sounding too impersonal, or worse, deliberately impersonal. Some occupation names seem kinda bad, if they don't evoke / allude to anything else - like Porter. Sometimes surnames resemble family name-dropping (like when someone names a baby with the surname of a wealthy relative, in an attempt to assert the association socially and create a status-image, and perhaps obtain an inheritance) - which comes off sort of pretentious to me. So it depends on the name, and whether it's familiar to me as a first-name, as well as a surname.
Places ... generally make okay names. My response to them depends a bit on my perception of a place's reputation. Allusions and sound matter more than that it's a place, or whether it's a continent, country, city, etc. I don't care for -ton names, but it's because they seem surnamey (impersonal or pretentious). Names like Denver, Sierra, Asia, India, Ireland, Egypt, Holland, Zaire, Alaska, even Chicago and Brooklyn ... they seem normal enough, where I live. I don't hate them - I like some more than others, but not because they're place-names.
Fandom names - I respond to them about the same way as I do to invented names. If they sound good to me, or don't. Just personal taste. But I disapprove of names after characters that have a sexualizing or violent depiction. Yuck. It doesn't really affect my impression of a person who is named after, say, an anime girl drawn with an exaggerated figure, or a TV character who tortures people to death - but I think giving such a name to a child is in rancid taste, on the part of their parents.
I don't really judge other-language / cross-cultural names unless I know they are given by someone who is culturally a lot like myself. I mean, it's fine - I actually have a young relative named Mila, whose family is all American midwestern protestants, not remotely Slavic ... and it's fine, I just think it's a bit shallow, like they basically exploited the existence of other languages to get a "fresh" name they liked the sound of. Also probably inspired by Mila Kunis, which makes it additionally seem shallow to me. But the name is fine. Whatever
If I'm giving a name to honor an ancestor I'd only use their actual first name, or maybe a different gender form of it, if a traditional one exists. If I alter the name then I am honoring my own memory of the ancestor, and it's about me and what I like. I think it's fine to do that, I just wouldn't call it honoring an ancestor.
I prefer characters to be named realistically for their setting, and if it's not realistic, it has to make sense within the story. Like if a teenager is named Patricia in a story set right now, I expect there to be something about that (like maybe she discovers she is of noble blood) otherwise it is distracting. Names that are very unrealistic (like a 70 year old Nevaeh), I take to be indicators that the world in the story is not meant to be the real world.
How much I like a name, I think is based on a mixture of all the things I associate it with, consciously and unconsciously. Sound, meaning, sense-associations, cultural associations, word-associations, gender associations, people I've seen the name on, popularity ... it's just personal taste.
I like names from a lot of categories but I feel like it's not that wide a variety. see my name list and see whether you agree.
There are names I like in the sense "I would name my baby that."
Then there are names I like in the sense "I would appreciate it on a person, though I would not name a baby it."
Ones I would use, I enjoy aesthetically, and feel like they seem appropriate to my family's place in society, basically. Whatever that means... It's pretty flexible because I'm American, and like it or not, sloppy cultural boundaries are part of American-ness. I can't describe the boundaries of my personal comfort-zone in simple terms, but there are boundaries. Some of those boundaries come directly from my existing marriage - if I were married to someone different, it'd be different, because my family would be different.
Names I appreciate, might be any name I like for any reason.
- mirfak
This message was edited 1/2/2024, 1:57 PM
