New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Homophonic Neonyms...
in reply to a message by Sabertooth
It's different to say you named your kid Blaze because of xyz. It's another thing to say that it's the meaning of the name. I can name my kid Blue and say I named him that because he has blue eyes. I cannot, however, say it means blue eyes. It simply means blue, no matter what personal spin I want to put on it.
I, personally, don't feel that any meaning for a name that a person creates is legitimate. I would imagine most users of the Facts Board would agree.
I, personally, don't feel that any meaning for a name that a person creates is legitimate. I would imagine most users of the Facts Board would agree.
2
Replies
But "fiery" is a legitimate alternate etymology for Blaze, even if it isn't the traditional one.
(Concentrate on the adjective. No one is advocating the inclusion of "eyes" in the meaning. That argument is detracting.)
Blue can mean "melancholy." Blue can mean the color. It is clear from your example that you mean the latter. Can anyone else demand that you accept the former?
That is true enough where the rules of grammar are expected to be enforced, but that is not the case in a euphonic naming system.
Euphonic naming embraces, at least, three types of names:
- Classical names
- this is where conventional onomastics shines
- Modern language names; lexonyms? [Clarion, Glory, Jubilee, Reveille, Valor, Victory, etc.]
- Made-up names (including portmanteaux); neonyms?
- May be assigned a meaning by the parents (onomastic neologism); tectonyms? [our own Joshana & Nissiah]
- May be close enough to a classical name to warrant such an interpretation; paronyms?
- May be abstract, with no meaning at all; adeionyms? [Dweezil?] |adeio| is Greek for "empty"
This message was edited 10/25/2014, 9:19 PM
1
The only "rules" of euphonic naming practices that I, and likely most of the board, disagree with are the 1st and 3rd point under number 3.
1
History doesn't have a monopoly on coining names, at least, not in a euphonic system. Like it or not, Dweezil is a real person's name. So is Nissiah.
(#2.1 is the topic of this thread. By accepting it, too, have you reconsidered your previous position?)
(#2.1 is the topic of this thread. By accepting it, too, have you reconsidered your previous position?)
This message was edited 10/25/2014, 9:21 PM
1
No, and I'm done discussing your pseudo-etymological theories.
This message was edited 10/25/2014, 11:55 PM
1
LMS,
You are painting a very inconsistent picture of yourself. You went from claiming to agree with most of my model in one post to rejecting it altogether in a single exchange.
You said,
That implied that you accepted items #1, #2, #2.1 and #3.2.
I followed with,
You responded,
Are you still referring to only items #3.1 & 3.3, or did you change your mind about the rest of it, too? (That isn't clear to me.)
You are painting a very inconsistent picture of yourself. You went from claiming to agree with most of my model in one post to rejecting it altogether in a single exchange.
You said,
That implied that you accepted items #1, #2, #2.1 and #3.2.
I followed with,
You responded,
Are you still referring to only items #3.1 & 3.3, or did you change your mind about the rest of it, too? (That isn't clear to me.)
This message was edited 10/26/2014, 5:47 AM
1