Naming Kids "Foe-net-ik-al-ee"

Kodiak · Post by **Kodiak** » 2008-03-06 11:44am

I recall not too long ago reading through a forum of baby-naming and I felt ill when I saw some of the names being used:

Ginnyphyr
Aydyn
Mykayla

and other such nonsense. It's been said before in this thread that the evolution of language is NOT caused by bastardized spelling, but by its use through time. My wife and I named our daughter Ruby. It's a word, it has a spelling, and we've made it signify her name. We thought about naming her "Rubie" or "Rubi" or "Rubii", but then we came to our senses and decided that would be, in a word, rhee-talldid. Give your kids normal names, so they can grow to be normal people.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-03-06 11:58am

The people who defend these asinine names invariably use arguments designed to prove that there is no innately correct spelling of names or words in any language. By that logic, teachers should stop putting red marks on childrens' essays when they are horribly misspelled.

The fact is that language and especially names are tradition-based. We can only communicate with each other because we are following pre-existing conventions. Languages do change over time, but slowly and in many cases, new forms are transient at best. Go back to the 1970s and 1980s and look at the various slang terms which, far from becoming new additions to the language, simply fell by the wayside over time.

Post by **Kuja** » 2008-03-06 12:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:The fact is that language and especially names are tradition-based. We can only communicate with each other because we are following pre-existing conventions. Languages do change over time, but slowly and in many cases, new forms are transient at best. Go back to the 1970s and 1980s and look at the various slang terms which, far from becoming new additions to the language, simply fell by the wayside over time.

"Tubular!"

I need to go wash myself now.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-03-06 12:10pm

My name is spelled at least 4 different ways, that I've seen. Derek (the correct way), Derrick (the oilman way), Derrek (the "I really like the letter R" way), and Darek (the totally retarded way). I'm sure there are some more variations there.

Interestingly, my spell-checker only took issue with the last version. I must be being pedantic again.

I think there are already precedents for doing this, though I can't recall any that are as blatantly retarded as that hyphenated shit. The other name that comes to mind is Sean/Shaun/Shawn.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2008-03-06 12:28pm

Sorry, I'm still laughing after discovering last week that Gaylord is an actual name. What was the tread about again?

Some parents must really hate their children

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-03-06 12:32pm

wautd wrote:Sorry, I'm still laughing after discovering last week that Gaylord is an actual name. What was the tread about again?

Some parents must really hate their children

There was a disastrous torpedo-bomber attack on the Japanese fleet at Midway in WW2 in which the lone survivor was an Ensign Gaylord, if I recall correctly. I still remember laughing about that when I was a kid, reading about the battle.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-03-06 02:02pm

Matt Huang wrote:
ArmorPierce wrote:
Spin Echo wrote:I think there was a study a while back that looked at how "unique names" faired in the job market. They sent out resumes with pretty much identical qualifications to companies, but one would have a normal name and the other would have a "unique" spelling. The unique name was much less likely to be receive an invitation to interview than the normal name.
Cite it please. I recall there being a study on non-anglo names having a adverse affect but as I recall it wasn't that much.
5 seconds on Google turned up the study you two are talking about

More studies along a similar vein. It's really not much of a surprise that this is the case. Especially if two candidates have otherwise almost identical qualifications.

Kristoff · Post by **Kristoff** » 2008-03-06 03:28pm

Lusankya wrote:I don't mind so much when the name I have to type is something like Bougumela, because at least that doesn't sound like any Anglo name.

No, no... It's baw-guw-MEE-wah

Flagg wrote:Darek (the totally retarded way)

In Polish that's a "pet name" of Dariusz

Post by **Simplicius** » 2008-03-06 03:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:There was a disastrous torpedo-bomber attack on the Japanese fleet at Midway in WW2 in which the lone survivor was an Ensign Gaylord, if I recall correctly. I still remember laughing about that when I was a kid, reading about the battle.

Just Gay, actually. George Gay.

While idiotic spellings and fruit-loop sounding names irritate me, what actually bothers me about this trend is that it suggests that parents are treating their newborns like they would consider a pet. They are giving their children a weird name to satisfy their own idea of 'uniqueness' or whatever, without any thought as to whether their child will like it, be irritated by it, be bullied for it, or have to constantly explain his name to people for as long as he keeps it.

That kind of attitude does not strike me as healthy.

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2008-03-06 05:49pm

I'd be interested to know what kind of privacy concerns might eventuate down the track for these children. I've got a fairly unique name (An uncommon first name together a rare as hell last name), and have suffered because of how stupidly easy it is for someone to google me and my activities online, where I've been forced to use my real name for legal reasons on a number of occasions.

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2008-03-06 06:39pm

I've always been a fan of very indo-european names or names that carry with them distinction. William, Albert, Rutherford etc to name a few. If you give a kid a stuck up sounding name, let them decide to shorten it to Bill or Alby or Rudy (seed used for Rudolf and Rutherford). If someone has a forked up name it can also hurt their chances of getting a good job, especially if they're a minority or come from a poor background. How many Taniquas and Uniques do you see running labs and large businesses? How many Antwans and Kareems (who aren't semetic) getting executive posistions. Few. If you take a peek at Forbes 100 best paid CEOs you will see no uneek names. Even ones that seem a bit odd are standard variants of relatively common names. And for foreigners (I'm american), they get names that are relatively common/of high standing in their cultures. Folks who do this to be posh muss up their kids futures to an extent.

O btw. On my name. It's Shamắ-Dàvid (gotta love compound names).

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2008-03-07 12:20am

It's very easy to get relatively exotic/unique, but nice sounding names simply by borrowing them from other countries. Though one must be careful about pronunciations. Leroy, which is actually relatively common, sounds cool in French but utterly retarded in the way most English speakers say it.

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:If someone has a forked up name it can also hurt their chances of getting a good job, especially if they're a minority or come from a poor background. How many Taniquas and Uniques do you see running labs and large businesses? How many Antwans and Kareems (who aren't semetic) getting executive posistions. Few. If you take a peek at Forbes 100 best paid CEOs you will see no uneek names. Even ones that seem a bit odd are standard variants of relatively common names.

You may be putting the cart before the horse here. It may be that weird names are an indicator rather than a cause. Shaniqua may not necessarily have a lesser chance of succeeding than if she had been named Monica. What hurts her chances of succeeding are her socio-economic background, which is indicated in her name. The article posted earlier in this thread, which anecdotally mentions the tale of two brothers, Winner Lane and Loser Lane, actually argues this, that names are not causes but really indicators.

General Trelane (Retired) · Post by **General Trelane (Retired)** » 2008-03-07 02:49pm

Kuja wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The fact is that language and especially names are tradition-based. We can only communicate with each other because we are following pre-existing conventions. Languages do change over time, but slowly and in many cases, new forms are transient at best. Go back to the 1970s and 1980s and look at the various slang terms which, far from becoming new additions to the language, simply fell by the wayside over time.
"Tubular!"

I need to go wash myself now.

As somewhat of a cycling enthusiast, I resent that. Tubular is a perfectly good word.

As for changing language, yes, today's new words are the brunt of tomorrow's jokes.

wautd wrote:Sorry, I'm still laughing after discovering last week that Gaylord is an actual name. What was the tread about again?

Some parents must really hate their children

I went to highschool with a Tracy Gaylord. As expected, this got her teased rather excessively. But I can't blame her parents since this was her surname and 'gay' didn't always mean what it does now. Should they have changed their surname? That would be drastic though not unheard of. I suspect that, if she ever got married, she wasn't too keen on keeping her maiden name.

But for someone to select Gaylord as a given name today would be simply idiotic. As is selecting a surname such as MacKenzie as a given name (a popular trend that I detest).

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-03-07 04:45pm

Matt Huang wrote:
ArmorPierce wrote:
Spin Echo wrote:I think there was a study a while back that looked at how "unique names" faired in the job market. They sent out resumes with pretty much identical qualifications to companies, but one would have a normal name and the other would have a "unique" spelling. The unique name was much less likely to be receive an invitation to interview than the normal name.
Cite it please. I recall there being a study on non-anglo names having a adverse affect but as I recall it wasn't that much.
5 seconds on Google turned up the study you two are talking about

Thank you for the article which show that I was right.

He said that recalled a study with unique spelled names. This article and study has nothing to do with that what-so-ever. It had to do with African-American sounding names versus White sounding names

The article concluded that it was due to racism and nothing more.

Master of Cards · Post by **Master of Cards** » 2008-03-07 05:27pm

While some of these names are hard. In Middle I went to school with the worst named kid I have personally met.

His name was Ben. Not bad right? But his last name was Harder. So in the idiotic 13 year old matter he got mocked hard.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2008-03-07 05:31pm

Master of Cards wrote:While some of these names are hard. In Middle I went to school with the worst named kid I have personally met.

His name was Ben. Not bad right? But his last name was Harder. So in the idiotic 13 year old matter he got mocked hard.

Yeah, that can be a problem too. Really when naming a kid, even with a normal enough sounding name, you have to take the whole name into context.

Like the Navy Captain I knew. His first name was Richard. Not too bad, right? Well except his last name was Dick. I'm sure you can all make your jokes from here.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2008-03-07 05:51pm

^That reminds me of Benjamin Dover and Richard Ryder.

ArmorPierce wrote:The article concluded that it was due to racism and nothing more.

Interestingly enough, being black and having a black sounding name can be an advantage in that case. It saves people from going to interviews that are not going to do them any good. I doubt the same employer that rejects black sounding names will suddenly stop being racist because the black man is named Thomas, John, or Edward.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-03-07 06:48pm

It may save them from going to useless interviews I agree. However, I think that people may have an easier time being racist when it is just a name on a sheet rather than when you are face-to-face with someone. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that it is much of a difference but it's still there.

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2008-03-08 03:38am

ArmorPierce wrote:Thank you for the article which show that I was right.

He said that recalled a study with unique spelled names. This article and study has nothing to do with that what-so-ever. It had to do with African-American sounding names versus White sounding names

The article concluded that it was due to racism and nothing more.

Actually, he was answering a completely different question. That study compared traditional names to made up names. The study I read compared how well "Oscar" did to "Ozkar" and "Jessica" to "Jayzika". I'll see if I can dig it up. I read it on paper and as it's not a hard science, it may take me a little longer to find.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-03-08 07:02am

WRT the OP, what is 'Ozkah' supposed to sound like? That doesn't appear to be a familiar name.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2008-03-08 07:25am

Either "Asuka" or "Oscar".

JCady · Post by **JCady** » 2008-03-08 09:51am

LadyTevar wrote:I have written so many rants about the stupid shit parents name their kids that I don't want to find all the links to the posts.

Designer Names (Mychele, Jaiden) suck. Tribute Names (Sephiroth? River?) suck. 'Black Power' names (Ta'nisha, La'dona, etc) suck. People who name their children Sha9C or Anonymous are fuckin' idiots.

So.. rant over. Next topic?

My best friend named her son Link...

salm · Post by **salm** » 2008-03-08 11:14am

You know, spelling correctly is something that people should do. However, a spelling reform every century is something that governments should do. Writing "to laugh" or "Bordeaux" when it should be spelled "laf" and "Bordo" is ridiculous.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-03-08 11:34am

Writing "to laugh" or "Bordeaux" when it should be spelled "laf" and "Bordo" is ridiculous.

"Laf" and "laugh" are pronounced in a completely different way, as are "Bordo" and "Bordeaux". You can't just cut out letters and expect the word to still work.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-03-08 05:05pm

Bounty wrote:
Writing "to laugh" or "Bordeaux" when it should be spelled "laf" and "Bordo" is ridiculous.
"Laf" and "laugh" are pronounced in a completely different way, as are "Bordo" and "Bordeaux". You can't just cut out letters and expect the word to still work.

In (at least my dialect of) American English, "laff" is a phonetic representation of "laugh", and "Bordo" is a phonetic representation of "Bordeaux". They are not pronounced differently at all.