New Post
Search
HelpUm . . .
in reply to a message by Mar
Giving it in reference to state doesn't change anything. I think you misunderstood my reason for not liking it.
Anyone who has read any number of my posts would know that I don't like word names. I don't much care for place names, virtue names, flower names, etc., so why would I treat a tribe name any differently? Unless you're confusing mine and Array's replies with the replies about it being disrespectful, I don't see any reason to argue this point. I didn't say it was disrespectful, or that the characteristics of the tribe render it unusuable; I wouldn't use it because it is a word "name," the name of a tribe. I don't like Brooklyn, London, Boston, Cheyenne, Grace, etc., etc., and I classify Dakota as such.
And no, I don't particularly like Norman, Saxon or Frank; their sounds are unappealing. Francis is nice, though.
Anyone who has read any number of my posts would know that I don't like word names. I don't much care for place names, virtue names, flower names, etc., so why would I treat a tribe name any differently? Unless you're confusing mine and Array's replies with the replies about it being disrespectful, I don't see any reason to argue this point. I didn't say it was disrespectful, or that the characteristics of the tribe render it unusuable; I wouldn't use it because it is a word "name," the name of a tribe. I don't like Brooklyn, London, Boston, Cheyenne, Grace, etc., etc., and I classify Dakota as such.
And no, I don't particularly like Norman, Saxon or Frank; their sounds are unappealing. Francis is nice, though.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1