Naming children - should the state step in?

[Mark6]

Should the state have any say in what parents name their children? New Zealand apparently does:

Note that one of the comments is from "Ftango Molasses". I wonder if Mr. and Mrs. Molasses were Lovecraft fans.

 

[crimresearch]

"If the name is so extreme that it demonstrably causes harm, then action may be required."

So you are just wasting time arguing against something you actually agree with.

 

[Dumb All Over]

My concern is for the song, "The Name Game". Remember?

John, John, bo Bon.
Banana fana fo Fon.
Etc....

A name like Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii just doesn't scan and will ultimately ruin a perfectly good song.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Nice strawman there. Do you feel 20,000+ names to choose from and the option to apply for more is blind conformity?

Hans

If it were in my country, yes.

Their real name is going to be visible in a lot of places, school pupil lists, passport, even bus cards. Sure many of the problems are negotiable, but why cater for them in the first place? Why must they even have to be concerned by such a silly whim of their parents? Is there any good reason AT ALL for it, except the holy principle of total freedom (which should then also apply to the child)?

Hans

In matters where harm is not demonstrated, yes, I do prefer to err on the side of freedom of choice.

"If the name is so extreme that it demonstrably causes harm, then action may be required."

So you are just wasting time arguing against something you actually agree with.

That was the position I expressed initially. That you apparently have issues understanding that, led to me having to waste time repeating myself.

 

[crimresearch]

If it were in my country, yes.



In matters where harm is not demonstrated, yes, I do prefer to err on the side of freedom of choice.



That was the position I expressed initially. That you apparently have issues understanding that, led to me having to waste time repeating myself.

You are being disingenuous.

Someone else expressed the opinion that the government should *never* intervene, and my post questioned the scope of 'never'.

You specifically responded to the 'N' word as an extreme example, by claiming that conformism in names was none of the government's business.

Your qualifiers about 'demonstrable harm' are less than useful. What is that? After the child is beaten? After no school will admit the child?

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

I agree, although I don't think the claim is that 'white trash' names will change a child's destiny (at least not significantly), but rather that certain names are prolific in certain demographic groups, so the basic thing determining the different fates of Khenney and Alexander is that Alexander's parents are upper middle class, whereas Khenney's are probably not.

At least, that tends to be the situation in Denmark.

But all that still does not justify allowing parents to name their child something like "Number 16 Bus Shelter".

Hans

If you read through the part you snipped, again, you will see that I make no claim that the name changes your destiny but point out that the demographics of the Bennys is the likely cause. I.e that is exactly what I'm saying.

But I'm also saying that teachers and employers are going to treat you in a certain way because of your name. I don't know how Denmark operates on this but in Sweden there is a distinction between working class and "white trash" - they are not the same people. So it's not just a class perspective that comes into play but more a matter of expectation. The Sebastians and Noahs of the Swedish middle classes usually don't come into it since they rarely, due to district banding, share schools with the kids we're talking about. Economically - and in questions of housing, etc, the Eriks and Kalles of the employed working classes shouldn't differ much from from the Rhobins, Cewins and Thexases. They live in the same areas and go to the same schools. Yet teachers will, unwittingly, expect better from Erik than he/she does from Cewin. For example: a test with the same mistakes handed in by Cewin is usually graded more harshly than that of Erik's. Erik will enjoy more benefit of doubt. Ultimately, it actually affects how you're treated.

The only difference between Number 16 Bus Shelter and Thexas is that while the kids can be cruel to either, Thexas is actually more likely to be discriminated against by people who should know better, like teachers.

And like someone else pointed out, when you've named your kid Adolph Hitler more things are wrong than just bad taste. In fact, it could be argued that a parent who thinks a kid is an accessory to their own ideals or sense of humour does better advertising this fact.

Personally, I think someone who names their kid Number 16 Bus Shelter needs a stern talking to. But I feel the exact same way about Thexaz' parents.

In the end, I do find the Danish naming laws (not to mention the Finnish) too restrictive by far. I don't give much for national identity and I see no reason at all to take Christian sensibilities into consideration (as is the case in Sweden). I think it's better if the name can be challenged, rather than verboten outright. 20.000 names ain't that much. Even when it's not regulated, people act as if there are only four names per gender per generation anyways.

I think it's better to step in after the fact - if a name is presumed okey until it's challenged, rather than having to apply for your name. That just sounds Kafkaesque to me.

And what more indication do you need that everything isn't okey in a particular household than the fact that the registration slip says "Jehosaphat Likes Barbies"?

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

There are long term studies in Sweden indicating that a man with a name ending in -y is five times more likely to have spent time in the penal system or have treatment for substance abuse.

This comment made me think of the Johnny Cash song "Boy Named Sue".

And yes, I realize Sue doesn't end in y (but ironically Johnny does).

 

[Agatha]

I don't know what bizarro world you live in, but in my world a newborn child needs a name (and social security number) to be listed on my medical insurance, for tax returns, etc.

I think jiggeryqua lives in the UK. It's hardly bizarro world.

Not everywhere in the world operates like the USA, you know. Here in England (and Wales) a child can be registered at any time up to 42 days following the birth, so a name isn't needed until then, and a child's name can be changed or added to (only once) on the birth certificate up to 12 months following registration. National Insurance numbers, which I suppose are roughly analagous to social security numbers, are allocated just before a child turns 16. Our tax system works very differently and a discussion of that would be off topic, but children aren't entered on the tax return (and not everyone has to complete a tax return, most people under the PAYE system do not have to do so).

 

[ZirconBlue]

You are being disingenuous.

Someone else expressed the opinion that the government should *never* intervene, and my post questioned the scope of 'never'.

I have never expresses support of that position.

You specifically responded to the 'N' word as an extreme example, by claiming that conformism in names was none of the government's business.

No, I didn't.

Your qualifiers about 'demonstrable harm' are less than useful. What is that? After the child is beaten? After no school will admit the child?

That would be for a judge to decide.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I think jiggeryqua lives in the UK. It's hardly bizarro world.

Not everywhere in the world operates like the USA, you know. Here in England (and Wales) a child can be registered at any time up to 42 days following the birth, so a name isn't needed until then, and a child's name can be changed or added to (only once) on the birth certificate up to 12 months following registration. National Insurance numbers, which I suppose are roughly analagous to social security numbers, are allocated just before a child turns 16. Our tax system works very differently and a discussion of that would be off topic, but children aren't entered on the tax return (and not everyone has to complete a tax return, most people under the PAYE system do not have to do so).

Of course I'm aware that things are different in other countries. But, I did not get the impression from jiggeryqua's post that even 42 days would be sufficient for his woo-sounding plan to wait until you get to know the "character" of your child before naming them. He seemed to indicate that a child didn't need a name prior to starting school, which I assume, is not that much earlier in the UK than it would be in the US (age 5-6).

That most people would not have a name chosen prior to or very shortly after birth, let alone for several years afterward, still sounds like bizarro world to me.

 

[cwalner]

This thread reminds me of passage from Good Omens. I am doing this from memory, so quote may not be exact.

'There are two ways a child named Peregrin Galadriel Moonchild can turn out. Pepper turned out the other way.'

 

[crimresearch]

"You specifically responded to the 'N' word as an extreme example, by claiming that conformism in names was none of the government's business. "

No, I didn't.

Well then tell whoever was using your computer in post #42, to make clear that it wasn't you who typed these words:

"Until actual harm is demonstrated, I see no need for the state to get involved in determining what is or is not an acceptably conformist name."

...in specific and quoted reply to the 'N' word as an extreme naming example.


ETA: And by the way, a judge *is* the government in the countries under discussion.

 

[Architect]

Having said that, if I'd had a girl I might have been tempted to name her Shivorn, but insist that it's pronounced 'See-o-ban'.

If you pronounce an "r" in Siobhan, you've got it wrong.

 

[Agatha]

Of course I'm aware that things are different in other countries. But, I did not get the impression from jiggeryqua's post that even 42 days would be sufficient for his woo-sounding plan to wait until you get to know the "character" of your child before naming them. He seemed to indicate that a child didn't need a name prior to starting school, which I assume, is not that much earlier in the UK than it would be in the US (age 5-6).

That most people would not have a name chosen prior to or very shortly after birth, let alone for several years afterward, still sounds like bizarro world to me.

In England and Wales, legally at five, but practically most children go to school at four, having been at nursery school since the age of three (as it is free from that age).

A child here has to be named by 1 year and 42 days after birth; so jiggeryqua was wrong in suggesting that a child could remain unnamed to school age.

My point was that the three things you stated as making it necessary for a child to be named immediately at birth (medical insurance, tax returns, social security number) - and suggesting any country which didn't require such things was "bizarro world" - aren't necessary for newborns in the UK. We have the NHS, and our tax and social security system is quite different. Perhaps you didn't mean to be insulting to other cultures, but it certainly smacked of USA or the highway.

All my children were named shortly after their births and in two of the four births we didn't have a settled name planned, and in one case we changed what we had decided after the child was born as he "looked like" a Charles, not a Robert as we had planned.

 

[zooterkin]

If you pronounce an "r" in Siobhan, you've got it wrong.

"Shivorn" is a good approximation, if you're English and therefore don't roll your 'R's.

 

[Architect]

All my children were named shortly after their births and in two of the four births we didn't have a settled name planned, and in one case we changed what we had decided after the child was born as he "looked like" a Charles, not a Robert as we had planned.

Surely he will have looked more like Winston Churchill?

 

[Architect]

"Shivorn" is a good approximation, if you're English and therefore don't roll your 'R's.

Erm, no, sorry, it's not. Shiv-awn would be a good approximation. There should be no hint of an "r" in Siobhan whatsoever, on account of it not actually being there.

Is this like how you southerners have started saying (for example) "drawring" instead of "drawing"?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

In non-rhotic accents, shivawn would be pronounced the same as shivorn.

 

[Craig4]

I have a cousin who was saddled with the name "Jor-El" (yes, after Superman's father). He goes by "Joe" now.

I'd spend most of my childhood plotting my revenge.

 

[Architect]

In non-rhotic accents, shivawn would be pronounced the same as shivorn.

Erm....

Accents of English can be either rhotic or non-rhotic. A rhotic accent generally has /r/ more or less whenever it appears in the spelling. A non-rhotic accent, however, does not have the /r/ in final or pre-consonantal positions (this is sometimes known as the post-vocalic /r/, although others use the more accurate, but perhaps more cumbersome term, the non-prevocalic /r/). What this means is that speakers of non-rhotic accents have this rule: if the <r> in the spelling does not occur before a vowel sound, don’t pronounce it. (NOTE: vowel sound, not vowel letter.)

Why would that make someone pronounce an "r" that just doesn't exist in the word then?