http://mentalfloss.com/us/go/68768

WTF? I guess I just always took for granted that parents could name their children whatever they decided. Then I heard some countries make certain names illegal.

At first I just figured it would be some third world hellhole oppressed under a twisted theocracy banning non-religious names. But nope.

Iceland and France especially. Lol, seriously?

In a world where people seriously name their kid "anal" and "Robocop", banning some names seems like a very, very good idea to me.

Or in Japan, where you have to choose a name from a list. There are only a few thousand on it. Some people need a smack on the head when they come up with their child's name.

So... can I name my child Immortan, and change my last name to Joe?

 Sigvatr wrote:
In a world where people seriously name their kid "anal" and "Robocop", banning some names seems like a very, very good idea to me.

This. Gennah Tyles, Orgasm, Fonda Cox, and Abstinence also agree that this is a good idea.

K.

What about France, where they can ban you from taking a perfectly legitimate name because they think kids could turn it into something to make fun of?

That seems like a pretty ludicrous level of government control in your life...

some people do need a list of what not to name your kid.

normal names fine, calling your child pebble, apple etc. nope.

 Jimsolo wrote:
K.

What about France, where they can ban you from taking a perfectly legitimate name because they think kids could turn it into something to make fun of?

That seems like a pretty ludicrous level of government control in your life...

Any examples? Nutella and Fraise (Strawberry) are hardly perfectly legitimate names, IMHO.

Also, in most countries you can change your name once you're an adult, so it's not really a ludicrous level of government control in your life.

I have a niece who was born a few years before the recent events in the middle east. And her name is Isis. Whoops.

 Jimsolo wrote:
K.

What about France, where they can ban you from taking a perfectly legitimate name because they think kids could turn it into something to make fun of?

That seems like a pretty ludicrous level of government control in your life...

Examples?

 curran12 wrote:
I have a niece who was born a few years before the recent events in the middle east. And her name is Isis. Whoops.

Now there's no way to proof against that. If you happened to name your kid Elsa before Frozen, it's too late. But if you name your kid Handsome Vag (actual kid's first and middle name) you knew what you were doing to the poor boy.

 curran12 wrote:
I have a niece who was born a few years before the recent events in the middle east. And her name is Isis. Whoops.

that was a legitimate name long before events in the middle east, Egyptian and rather old. just bad luck they happened to take the same one.

Now if you where going with that now, and knew about the middle east, you would probbly want to have a chat with them as ask are you sure you want to go through with this and it implication. those already called it, that you cannot do much about.

I think I'm gonna name my firstborn male Handsome Jack (first and middle).

 jhe90 wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I have a niece who was born a few years before the recent events in the middle east. And her name is Isis. Whoops.

that was a legitimate name long before events in the middle east, Egyptian and rather old. just bad luck they happened to take the same one.

Now if you where going with that now, and knew about the middle east, you would probbly want to have a chat with them as ask are you sure you want to go through with this and it implication. those already called it, that you cannot do much about.

Hence why a lot of people call them ISIL.

It could be worse, you could have an ISIS tattoo.....

I know (more than one, actually) woman named Strawberry. How is that unreasonable? And the reason the judge gave? It sounds too much like another word? That's insane!

Nutella is weird, sure, but no weirder than Zaxyn, Dorcas, Jedidiah, Khaleesi, or dozens of other names people give their babies with no problem.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think I'm gonna name my firstborn male Handsome Jack (first and middle).

My wife works...well, she works in a business where she processes people's paperwork all day. She has run into a child whose middle name is Petethedragonslayer.

Another one from her files of madness: a man named John Smith (no middle name), who had twin sons, named John Smith and John Smith. Needless to say, they had some paperwork snafus trying to sort their forms all out...

A pet hate of mine is people using surnames as first names.
Especially stuff like McKenna or something, since it tends to be a girl's name which looks stupid to me because the prefix Mc comes from the gaelic mac which means "son of" (for women, it should be ní, for daughter of). So you get a girl whose name means "Son of Kenna" (also, yes, McNuggets are "Chicken, Son of Nugget").

My surname is Kennedy, which some people use as a first name for their kids, and it baffles me. [/weird rant]

 welshhoppo wrote:
Or in Japan, where you have to choose a name from a list. There are only a few thousand on it. Some people need a smack on the head when they come up with their child's name.

It's not quite as bad as that. Some foreign names cannot be transliterated into Japanese due to differences in the sounds in the language.

Perhaps it is socially acceptable in the USA to name your child "witch witch witch witch witch witch witch witch witch gakker gak Face"? Not sure if it is a common name...

Common, no. But illegal? Also no. (At least to my knowledge.)

Plus, that name is quite another story from 'Strawberry,' or 'Sara.'

In certain parts of the US, babies have to have their father's last name.

 Jimsolo wrote:
K.

What about France, where they can ban you from taking a perfectly legitimate name because they think kids could turn it into something to make fun of?

That seems like a pretty ludicrous level of government control in your life...

No, that's a perfectly reasonable level of government control of how much they allow you to screw up your children's life or the sake of something that you found amusing when you were drunk, and that the poor bloody child is going to have to actually live with.

Your life isn't the issue.

One of the care takers at gw HQ has genuinely named his youngest Ferrus Manus...

In NZ there are a lot of laws around what you can name a child. When my 5th sibling was born I read through the laws and it basically says:

No stupid names (seaborne rust)
They must be pronounceable (nhijflickdfr)
Not offensive
Cannot be more than 100 characters
Cannot have titles or ranks even if misspelled

If your name is within the criteria above it gets rejected and you cannot register the baby until you have a passing name. It is likely the vast majority of countries have these rules and they make perfect sense. Nobody is going to hire a "Ser-Peanutbutt" nor is anyone gonna take that person seriously.

Meh, Im still naming My Kid Sanquinor

 Swastakowey wrote:
In NZ there are a lot of laws around what you can name a child. When my 5th sibling was born I read through the laws and it basically says:

No stupid names (seaborne rust)
They must be pronounceable (nhijflickdfr)
Not offensive
Cannot be more than 100 characters
Cannot have titles or ranks even if misspelled

If your name is within the criteria above it gets rejected and you cannot register the baby until you have a passing name. It is likely the vast majority of countries have these rules and they make perfect sense. Nobody is going to hire a "Ser-Peanutbutt" nor is anyone gonna take that person seriously.

What happens if you have an unregistered baby? Do the Sandmen come?

skyth wrote:In certain parts of the US, babies have to have their father's last name.

Do you have a source on that? It isn't that I don't believe you, I've just never heard of it and would like to learn the specifics.

Frazzled wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
In NZ there are a lot of laws around what you can name a child. When my 5th sibling was born I read through the laws and it basically says:

No stupid names (seaborne rust)
They must be pronounceable (nhijflickdfr)
Not offensive
Cannot be more than 100 characters
Cannot have titles or ranks even if misspelled

If your name is within the criteria above it gets rejected and you cannot register the baby until you have a passing name. It is likely the vast majority of countries have these rules and they make perfect sense. Nobody is going to hire a "Ser-Peanutbutt" nor is anyone gonna take that person seriously.

What happens if you have an unregistered baby? Do the Sandmen come?

1) Who defines stupid? Is a religious name no one uses anymore stupid? (There's plenty to pick from)
2) So can they ban names that are Hindi or Arabic or otherwise difficult for the judge to pronounce?
3) Who defines offensive? Naming a child after historical figures could be construed as offensive to groups that figure wronged.
4) I suppose a length limit seems reasonable, if only for processing purposes.
5) Real world or fantasy? (Given that Khaleesi is a for-real name being given these days.)

 Jimsolo wrote:
K.

What about France, where they can ban you from taking a perfectly legitimate name because they think kids could turn it into something to make fun of?

That seems like a pretty ludicrous level of government control in your life...

Considering that studies seem to show a surprisingly strong correlation between "weird" names and a general lack of success in life... granted, it's probably as much to do with poor parenting in general, but the point is, it's the kid's name, not the parent's. The choices you make as a parent should be made for the sake of the kid, not out of the mistaken sense that the parent has the right to control their kid's lives. Parents have the responsibility take care of their kids, not the freedom to potentially ruin their kid's life.

Jimoslo wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
In NZ there are a lot of laws around what you can name a child. When my 5th sibling was born I read through the laws and it basically says:

No stupid names (seaborne rust)
They must be pronounceable (nhijflickdfr)
Not offensive
Cannot be more than 100 characters
Cannot have titles or ranks even if misspelled

If your name is within the criteria above it gets rejected and you cannot register the baby until you have a passing name. It is likely the vast majority of countries have these rules and they make perfect sense. Nobody is going to hire a "Ser-Peanutbutt" nor is anyone gonna take that person seriously.

1) Who defines stupid? Is a religious name no one uses anymore stupid? (There's plenty to pick from)
2) So can they ban names that are Hindi or Arabic or otherwise difficult for the judge to pronounce?
3) Who defines offensive? Naming a child after historical figures could be construed as offensive to groups that figure wronged.
4) I suppose a length limit seems reasonable, if only for processing purposes.
5) Real world or fantasy? (Given that Khaleesi is a for-real name being given these days.)

Stupid? Well of someone named their kid Jabba the Hutt then that would be unanimously considered stupid. Who decides? I don't know but whoever does it in my country does a god job that's for sure. Yet to see a dumb name like Rapter Ruccus or anything.

No... they have to be pronounceable. Can you pronounce "Gtmv"? Then no that cannot be used as a name.

Offensive, well im sure if you named your kid "A Kind Fethwit" then it would be offensive. I think the term used was Obscene language is not ok.

The limit is reasonable for both the child and the government etc. Imagine your little child trying to spell out their 99 character name!

Real world. So no "Doctar Grant" or "Generaal Dylan" etc.

All these rules make perfect sense too, I find it hard to see why you are arguing against some of these.

You didn't really answer the second one; for whom must the name be pronounceable? The parents? The child? The judge? Jim down the road? "Gtmv" is perfectly pronounceable, it's 'GUT-muv', or rather that's what the parents could say. On what basis and in whose opinion is it deemed unpronounceable?

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You didn't really answer the second one; for whom must the name be pronounceable? The parents? The child? The judge? Jim down the road? "Gtmv" is perfectly pronounceable, it's 'GUT-muv', or rather that's what the parents could say. On what basis and in whose opinion is it deemed unpronounceable?

The way you pronounced it is you just trying to make sense of a word with no vowels etc.

Languages are intelligently designed and adhering a name to one of the languages chosen for your child will end up with something pronounceable by the vast majority of normal people.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You didn't really answer the second one; for whom must the name be pronounceable? The parents? The child? The judge? Jim down the road? "Gtmv" is perfectly pronounceable, it's 'GUT-muv', or rather that's what the parents could say. On what basis and in whose opinion is it deemed unpronounceable?

The way you pronounced it is you just trying to make sense of a word with no vowels etc.

Languages are intelligently designed and adhering a name to one of the languages chosen for your child will end up with something pronounceable by the vast majority of normal people.

A word doesn't have to have vowels for it to be pronounceable. I pronounced the name, therefore it's pronounceable, on who's authority and by what law(s) would it not be?

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You didn't really answer the second one; for whom must the name be pronounceable? The parents? The child? The judge? Jim down the road? "Gtmv" is perfectly pronounceable, it's 'GUT-muv', or rather that's what the parents could say. On what basis and in whose opinion is it deemed unpronounceable?

The way you pronounced it is you just trying to make sense of a word with no vowels etc.

Languages are intelligently designed and adhering a name to one of the languages chosen for your child will end up with something pronounceable by the vast majority of normal people.

A word doesn't have to have vowels for it to be pronounceable. I pronounced the name, therefore it's pronounceable, on who's authority and by what law(s) would it not be?

Not too sure really. The system seems to do a good job though. But im not entirely sure, I took it as it has to be a "real word". "Tm" is not really pronounceable, you can say the letters but it's not really a word sort of thing.

Not sure.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
...on who's authority and by what law(s) would it not be?

That would be the registrar whose job it is to record the name for the birth certificate.


As with anything in law, there would be an appeals process of you disagree with their decision, but I'm frankly having trouble coming up with any good reason to allow a child to be given a name of unpronounceable consonants thrown together in a bag.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You didn't really answer the second one; for whom must the name be pronounceable? The parents? The child? The judge? Jim down the road? "Gtmv" is perfectly pronounceable, it's 'GUT-muv', or rather that's what the parents could say. On what basis and in whose opinion is it deemed unpronounceable?

The way you pronounced it is you just trying to make sense of a word with no vowels etc.

Languages are intelligently designed and adhering a name to one of the languages chosen for your child will end up with something pronounceable by the vast majority of normal people.

A word doesn't have to have vowels for it to be pronounceable. I pronounced the name, therefore it's pronounceable, on who's authority and by what law(s) would it not be?

Governmental regulations of the country of birth, of course.

I think that's what Jim was trying to highlight. It's a well-intentioned rule that, to a layperson, appears actually rather arbitrary and dependent on the opinion of whoever makes the call. There might be something in the law that clarifies it, but I can see some people not understanding why their totally pronounceable--at least, to them--name was rejected.

 insaniak wrote:
As with anything in law, there would be an appeals process of you disagree with their decision, but I'm frankly having trouble coming up with any good reason to allow a child to be given a name of unpronounceable consonants thrown together in a bag.

I can't really see a reason to allow such a name, either, but so long as its pronunciation is the only factor in its rejection, I can see how people would object to someone saying "You may be able to pronounce it, but I can't, so I won't allow it".

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I think that's what Jim was trying to highlight. It's a well-intentioned rule that, to a layperson, appears actually rather arbitrary and dependent on the opinion of whoever makes the call. There might be something in the law that clarifies it, but I can see some people not understanding why their totally pronounceable--at least, to them--name was rejected.

 insaniak wrote:
As with anything in law, there would be an appeals process of you disagree with their decision, but I'm frankly having trouble coming up with any good reason to allow a child to be given a name of unpronounceable consonants thrown together in a bag.

I can't really see a reason to allow such a name, either, but so long as its pronunciation is the only factor in its rejection, I can see how people would object to someone saying "You may be able to pronounce it, but I can't, so I won't allow it".

By that logic though someone can say "Deedlwoop Boob Sucky Sucky" may be funny TO YOU but it's not funny to me! So why can't I use it?

If they are serious about the name they will more than likely be happy to go and get it sorted. I don't think it's an issue personally.

When dealing with laws around making sounds with our mouths as names alongside a written version I am certain that the laws most countries have are very reasonable. We can make endless sounds with our mouths etc so to cover all I think the laws do a good job.

Well there's sanity.

If you call your kid Adolf in Germany, Poland, Russia, or Israel. for example it may not pass and be kinder to have another name.

Ferrus manus, well they could have chose worse in game names....

Though a list of banned names than a list of approved seems a better system.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

I can't really see a reason to allow such a name, either, but so long as its pronunciation is the only factor in its rejection, I can see how people would object to someone saying "You may be able to pronounce it, but I can't, so I won't allow it".

At which point, they would be able to follow appropriate channels to appeal the registrar's decision.

Along the way, though, they're probably going to have to explain why they think that giving their child a patently absurd name is a good idea.


And no, that's not going to prevent people from giving people culturally relevant names from countries that speak languages the registrar isn't familiar with. The sole purpose of these laws is to prevent children from being saddled with names that are going to be detrimental... and quite frankly, I don't think the laws go far enough. Anyone seriously trying to give their child a ridiculous name for the lols should be charged with child abuse and have their fitness to be a parent investigated before being allowed to leave the maternity ward.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

Though a list of banned names than a list of approved seems a better system.

That sort of depends on what you're trying to achieve with said list.

Some countries have specifically defined 'proper' names, and so the list of approved names makes sense, and removes any doubt as to whether or not a name you just made up on the spot by mashing three other people's names together is going to be allowed.

A 'ban' list only removes existing names that someone has decided shouldn't be allowed... nonsense is going to slip through, if that list is the sole criteria for allowing the name or not.

If I ever have a kid, he'll be called "The Emperor".

 Jimsolo wrote:

skyth wrote:In certain parts of the US, babies have to have their father's last name.

Do you have a source on that?

I couldn't find the story but a couple years ago a married couple with different last names tried to give their child the mother's last name. They found out that state law had been recently changed to mandate the child have the father's last name to make collection of child support easier to keep the kids off wellfare.

I want to say it was one of the Carolinas bur not sure on that.

 skyth wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

skyth wrote:In certain parts of the US, babies have to have their father's last name.

Do you have a source on that?

I couldn't find the story but a couple years ago a married couple with different last names tried to give their child the mother's last name. They found out that state law had been recently changed to mandate the child have the father's last name to make collection of child support easier to keep the kids off wellfare.

I want to say it was one of the Carolinas bur not sure on that.

Okie doke. I thought you were saying they required the child take the father's given name, rather than surname.

I don't understand people's need to ruin their child's life for a cheap laugh that will get old a year in. People will scream "MUH FREEDUMS!" but you're actively screwing with someone else's life, at that point it becomes more than a personal freedom issue.

I'm pretty sure the New Zealand law basically applies a hefty dose of common sense. Besides most of the time its just used to stop parents naming their child a title like "king" or "princess".

Also when all those people named "Khalessi" become adults in 2033 I'm sure they will immediately appreciate the not at all dated reference because I'm sure GoT will still have the exact cultural significance then as it does now. By the 2050's I expect a President Khalessi, such is the power and gravitas the name gives it holder.

What I'm saying is, its a stupid name and everyone who has named their child Khalessi is stupid. Its not even her name FFS.

Frank Zappa named his son Dweezil and his daughter Moon Unit.

 Breotan wrote:
Frank Zappa named his son Dweezil and his daughter Moon Unit.

Yes, Yer'onour, please submit as exhibit A 'Why drugs are bad, m'kay?'

 EmilCrane wrote:
I don't understand people's need to ruin their child's life for a cheap laugh that will get old a year in. People will scream "MUH FREEDUMS!" but you're actively screwing with someone else's life, at that point it becomes more than a personal freedom issue.

I'm pretty sure the New Zealand law basically applies a hefty dose of common sense. Besides most of the time its just used to stop parents naming their child a title like "king" or "princess".

Also when all those people named "Khalessi" become adults in 2033 I'm sure they will immediately appreciate the not at all dated reference because I'm sure GoT will still have the exact cultural significance then as it does now. By the 2050's I expect a President Khalessi, such is the power and gravitas the name gives it holder.

What I'm saying is, its a stupid name and everyone who has named their child Khalessi is stupid. Its not even her name FFS.

Or it could catch on. 'Wendy' was a name wholly invented by JM Barrie for 'Peter Pan.' Now? No one bats an eye.

 Jimsolo wrote:
'Wendy' was a name wholly invented by JM Barrie for 'Peter Pan.'

That's a myth.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
'Wendy' was a name wholly invented by JM Barrie for 'Peter Pan.'

That's a myth.

I am pretty sure if you go back far enough (like hundreds of years ago) it's used as a male name.

Originally, yes. And even for women, according to census reports it was in use as a woman's name at least 30 years before Barrie used it in his book.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
I don't understand people's need to ruin their child's life for a cheap laugh that will get old a year in. People will scream "MUH FREEDUMS!" but you're actively screwing with someone else's life, at that point it becomes more than a personal freedom issue.

I'm pretty sure the New Zealand law basically applies a hefty dose of common sense. Besides most of the time its just used to stop parents naming their child a title like "king" or "princess".

Also when all those people named "Khalessi" become adults in 2033 I'm sure they will immediately appreciate the not at all dated reference because I'm sure GoT will still have the exact cultural significance then as it does now. By the 2050's I expect a President Khalessi, such is the power and gravitas the name gives it holder.

What I'm saying is, its a stupid name and everyone who has named their child Khalessi is stupid. Its not even her name FFS.

Or it could catch on. 'Wendy' was a name wholly invented by JM Barrie for 'Peter Pan.' Now? No one bats an eye.

Even if that is true I don't think game of thrones will have the same cultural significance as Peter Pan

Here's the thing--several people seem to think I'm championing the right of meth head s--thooks to name their children 'zzzzzxxvn!stein' or somesuch. That's not the case.

But telling a parent they can't name their child 'Sara?' When does that become acceptable?

While 'Strawberry' is a touch odd, it isn't any weirder than 'Cherry,' and I'm sure there are plenty more fruit names in non-english languages that are perfectly acceptable. The French judge's reasoning behind vetoing 'Strawberry' is patently ludicrous.

Those are the two that really have my mind reeling.

(And I'm also wondering: once you give that power to a government, then where does it end?)

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
'Wendy' was a name wholly invented by JM Barrie for 'Peter Pan.'

That's a myth.

Hmmm.

*More research*

So it is. My bad. (In the interests of fairness, I did check Snopes first, and got nothing.)

Middle names are allowable though (in moderation). A friend of mine has named his son Noah James Tiberius O'Sullivan.

Personally I think that's a classic.

 Jimsolo wrote:

But telling a parent they can't name their child 'Sara?' When does that become acceptable?

In a democratic country, presumably when the law says so, and not enough people disagree with that law to get it changed.

Anywhere else, just when the law says so :p

(And I'm also wondering: once you give that power to a government, then where does it end?)

Where the applicable laws do...?

Reading what some other people have named their kids is an excellent example of why some people should not be allowed to breed.

That a supposedly grown and mature adult could think it acceptable to (allegedly) name a child 'Ferrus Manus' is mind boggling.

I have grown up with a non-normal first name and I know from deep personal experience what an absolute hell it can be.

 Jimsolo wrote:

(And I'm also wondering: once you give that power to a government, then where does it end?)

At the bottom of the slippery slope, with every bone in your body broken from the fall.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
K.

What about France, where they can ban you from taking a perfectly legitimate name because they think kids could turn it into something to make fun of?

That seems like a pretty ludicrous level of government control in your life...

Considering that studies seem to show a surprisingly strong correlation between "weird" names and a general lack of success in life... granted, it's probably as much to do with poor parenting in general, but the point is, it's the kid's name, not the parent's. The choices you make as a parent should be made for the sake of the kid, not out of the mistaken sense that the parent has the right to control their kid's lives. Parents have the responsibility take care of their kids, not the freedom to potentially ruin their kid's life.

This. Parents have power over their kids, and with great power...

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
'Wendy' was a name wholly invented by JM Barrie for 'Peter Pan.'

That's a myth.

Short for the Welsh name "Gwendolyn" I think.

 skyth wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

skyth wrote:In certain parts of the US, babies have to have their father's last name.

Do you have a source on that?

I couldn't find the story but a couple years ago a married couple with different last names tried to give their child the mother's last name. They found out that state law had been recently changed to mandate the child have the father's last name to make collection of child support easier to keep the kids off wellfare.

I want to say it was one of the Carolinas bur not sure on that.

That's pretty standard in the UK. The child almost always takes the fathers surname unless it's unknown or they are already estranged. Leads to quite a bit of confusion when the mother and child have different surnames.

 insaniak wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Frank Zappa named his son Dweezil and his daughter Moon Unit.

Yes, Yer'onour, please submit as exhibit A 'Why drugs are bad, m'kay?'

I'm pretty sure Frank Zappa wasn't that into drugs.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

But telling a parent they can't name their child 'Sara?' When does that become acceptable?

In a democratic country, presumably when the law says so, and not enough people disagree with that law to get it changed.

Anywhere else, just when the law says so :p

(And I'm also wondering: once you give that power to a government, then where does it end?)

Where the applicable laws do...?

I am starting to think you're just trolling me...

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You didn't really answer the second one; for whom must the name be pronounceable? The parents? The child? The judge? Jim down the road? "Gtmv" is perfectly pronounceable, it's 'GUT-muv', or rather that's what the parents could say. On what basis and in whose opinion is it deemed unpronounceable?

The way you pronounced it is you just trying to make sense of a word with no vowels etc.

Languages are intelligently designed and adhering a name to one of the languages chosen for your child will end up with something pronounceable by the vast majority of normal people.

Intelligently designed?

Have you ever actually studied English?

English is not just cobbled together, no, nor does it just borrow things from other languages, English follows other languages into dark alleys and clubs them over the head before going through their pockets, looking for loose grammar.

English has the names Cholmondley and Featherstonehaugh which are very hard to pronounce correctly.

Don't forget Ralph.

It would help with idiots naming their child after every member of their favorite football team having 10-15 middlenames cant be good

 filbert wrote:
Reading what some other people have named their kids is an excellent example of why some people should not be allowed to breed.

That a supposedly grown and mature adult could think it acceptable to (allegedly) name a child 'Ferrus Manus' is mind boggling.

I have grown up with a non-normal first name and I know from deep personal experience what an absolute hell it can be.

I was kidding about my Handsome Jack/Borderlands reference. Actually, I plan to name my firstborn male Nathan Alexander (Cable's and Havoc's first names). But with my last name, it actually sounds like a nice, legitimate name. Only somebody like me would recognize it as a comic book naming setup.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I am starting to think you're just trolling me...

No, I'm absolutely serious. You seem to think that allowing the government to regulate this thing that you personally don't agree with will mean that said government will go power-mad and regulate everything.

Which is patently not the case. Governments (including yours) regulate all sorts of things. That's a part of their job. But their power to do so ultimately starts and ends with those who elect them.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I am starting to think you're just trolling me...

No, I'm absolutely serious. You seem to think that allowing the government to regulate this thing that you personally don't agree with will mean that said government will go power-mad and regulate everything.

Which is patently not the case. Governments (including yours) regulate all sorts of things. That's a part of their job. But their power to do so ultimately starts and ends with those who elect them.

I don't think that at all. I don't even know how you're getting that from what I've written.

I think there is the potential for them to apply ridiculous standards or reasoning to the decisions, which the Moroccan and French examples clearly show. I can see a reason for the laws, but I'm legitimately mystified at the fact that these laws are allowed to be applied in this fashion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait. Think I found it. You seemed to get offended when I said this was an unreasonable level of government control. I wasn't saying this would lead to other intrusions, it that's what you're taking from that.

But to say "you can't give your child a name with a phonetic resemblance to a word or phase that could potentially be used to make fun of them" (France) or "your child's name must reflect the heritage of this nation" (Morocco) seems unreasonable.

(Sorry for all the edits. First smart phone, and autocorrect is killing me!)

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't think that at all. I don't even know how you're getting that from what I've written.

You don't see how:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(And I'm also wondering: once you give that power to a government, then where does it end?)

...might be taken as a suggestion that you wonder where it ends if you grant this power to a government?

I think there is the potential for them to apply ridiculous standards or reasoning to the decisions,...

Of course there is. There's also a potential for a government that is in control of highways to change the speed limit to 3mph. That doesn't mean it will actually happen.

Wait. Think I found it. You seemed to get offended when I said this was an unreasonable level of government control.

Not offended. Just bemused.

But to say "you can't give your child a name with a phonetic resemblance to a word or phase that could potentially be used to make fun of them" (France) or "your child's name must reflect the heritage of this nation" (Morocco) seems unreasonable.

To you.

To the people of Morocco or France, apparently not so much... or the laws would have been changed.


Some countries have a very firm grip on their cultural identity. Having names of cultural significance, or at least having names that 'fit' can be a part of that. So long as the citizens of those countries are content with that arrangement, there's no issue... although I can see how that idea might seem foreign to someone from a country where the cultural identity is so firmly tied to personal freedoms above all other considerations.

Living in a multi-cultural, post colonial society like the USA it might seem strange that a government would regulate names to fit with a cultural identity. However places like Morocco are largely culturally homogeneous so this isn't really an issue.

Also I believe giving a child a name that could be used to make fun of them is child abuse and I've got no issue with countries stopping parents from silly names.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I am starting to think you're just trolling me...

No, I'm absolutely serious. You seem to think that allowing the government to regulate this thing that you personally don't agree with will mean that said government will go power-mad and regulate everything.

Which is patently not the case. Governments (including yours) regulate all sorts of things. That's a part of their job. But their power to do so ultimately starts and ends with those who elect them.

That would only be true if they were accountable to those electing them in a meaningful way.

The way it actually works is that if some elected official does something you dont like, in theory you can opt not to vote for them, in theory this might hurt their chances of being elected.

Even if it does result in them not being elected, there is no way you voting in someone else will result in the offensive law being rescinded or changed.

Its at the point where you can literally have candidates campaign on things like closing gitmo for example, then they simply do not make good on the promise (plenty of examples from both sides doing this), and jon q public has zero meaningful recourse.

Governments have the job of regulating things, this is true, but the performing of needless regulation isnt in line with the goals or mandate of that job much in the same way a cabbies job is to drive you somewhere but if they just circle around a few extra times its considered superfluous and not performing their job properly . If the regulations are out of line with public interest, or are just a waste of time, or simply dont make sense, then the
""they are just doing their job" argument, is a non sequitur because that is not the point, they are doing their job poorly.


That being said, I think we should allow any names we want, if only to point out who the stupid parents are.

There are a lot of laws protecting children from the idiocy of their parents. Why not here too?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
There are a lot of laws protecting children from the idiocy of their parents. Why not here too?

Legislating morality and stupidity doesn't always work out well.

Its a bit odd to hear naming babies being called out as an issue worth regulating, when things like cutting off part of a baby's penis is still allowed.

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

 easysauce wrote:
Governments have the job of regulating things, this is true, but the performing of needless regulation isnt in line with the goals or mandate of that job ...

Which ultimately comes down to where you draw the line between necessary and unecessary regulation.

For those countries that feel strongly about maintaining their cultural heritage, or who feel that allowing parents to give their children stupid names is not in the childrens' best interests and that parents simply can't always be trusted to act like adults on this matter, this counts as necessary regulation.

That being said, I think we should allow any names we want, if only to point out who the stupid parents are.

If the only harm done was to the parents, that might be acceptable.

Unfortunately, the parents who chose to name their child 'Strawberry' don't wind up being the butt of the majority of the ridicule...

 easysauce wrote:
Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

Can you, however, provide an accepted medical reason for allowing a child to be given a silly name?

In Russia, everyone is by law required to have three names. Having more or less than three names is illegal.
Russian first names are pretty complicated. I don't know if there are any laws on what you can name your child, but in practice parents always pick from a stock list of traditional names. And if you ask me, that is good. There was a time after the Revolution when parents began to show more creativity in naming their children, and it led to this: http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=34446

insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't think that at all. I don't even know how you're getting that from what I've written.

You don't see how:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(And I'm also wondering: once you give that power to a government, then where does it end?)

...might be taken as a suggestion that you wonder where it ends if you grant this power to a government?

I don't see how wondering what the extent of that law is equates to thinking the government is "going to go power mad and regulate everything," no. I'm wondering what the extent of their purview is regarding names. Since the only person who has posted here about the legal parameters indicated that the definitions were very nebulous, I think it's a reasonable question to ask.

I think there is the potential for them to apply ridiculous standards or reasoning to the decisions,...

Of course there is. There's also a potential for a government that is in control of highways to change the speed limit to 3mph. That doesn't mean it will actually happen.

Except that something equally silly has happened. The French example is pretty much just as silly.

But to say "you can't give your child a name with a phonetic resemblance to a word or phase that could potentially be used to make fun of them" (France) or "your child's name must reflect the heritage of this nation" (Morocco) seems unreasonable.

To you.

To the people of Morocco or France, apparently not so much... or the laws would have been changed.


Some countries have a very firm grip on their cultural identity. Having names of cultural significance, or at least having names that 'fit' can be a part of that. So long as the citizens of those countries are content with that arrangement, there's no issue... although I can see how that idea might seem foreign to someone from a country where the cultural identity is so firmly tied to personal freedoms above all other considerations.

So strong a grip that you have to legislate the cultural origin of baby names seems weird to me, yes. It seems equally weird to me that the folks from Europe and Australia don't find it weird, too. Personal freedom being very highly regarded in those places (in general) as well.

insaniak wrote:
If the only harm done was to the parents, that might be acceptable.

Unfortunately, the parents who chose to name their child 'Strawberry' don't wind up being the butt of the majority of the ridicule...

The only ridicule from that name was in the judge's head! That's the problem. He didn't restrict it because he thought Strawberry was a silly name. If we banned every name that children could say a slightly different way to make fun of the bearer, there'd be precious few names left.

 Jimsolo wrote:
So strong a grip that you have to legislate the cultural origin of baby names seems weird to me, yes. It seems equally weird to me that the folks from Europe and Australia don't find it weird, too. Personal freedom being very highly regarded in those places (in general) as well.

Can't speak for Europe, but in general Australians are fairly ok with sacrificing a little personal freedom where there's a demonstratable good reason for it.

People seriously wanting to name their children things like 'Moon Unit' and 'Strawberry' is a fairly well demonstrated reason.

The only ridicule from that name was in the judge's head!

Yes... because he chose to veto the name.

Had it gone ahead, I could pretty much guarantee that poor kid would have been asking people to call her 'Lisa' by the time she was halfway through primary school.

 easysauce wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
There are a lot of laws protecting children from the idiocy of their parents. Why not here too?

Legislating morality and stupidity doesn't always work out well.

Its a bit odd to hear naming babies being called out as an issue worth regulating, when things like cutting off part of a baby's penis is still allowed.

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

As mentioned beforehand laws like this protect the child from having to live with a stupid name. I don't think you would want to be named "Abstinence" or "Khaleesi" especially when no one gets the later reference. And that Khaleesi isn't even her name.

The thing is, Kids will pick on names no matter what.
My name was made fun of so much, and it is arguably common.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
There are a lot of laws protecting children from the idiocy of their parents. Why not here too?

Legislating morality and stupidity doesn't always work out well.

Its a bit odd to hear naming babies being called out as an issue worth regulating, when things like cutting off part of a baby's penis is still allowed.

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

As mentioned beforehand laws like this protect the child from having to live with a stupid name. I don't think you would want to be named "Abstinence" or "Khaleesi" especially when no one gets the later reference. And that Khaleesi isn't even her name.

IDK, Khaleesi probably won't be too bad once the GoT era ends. Its pretty and unusual, but not difficult to say or super weird(like some other examples we've seen). Its got some possible nicknames which are fairly normal sounding like Kali.

Or Kali MA.

 easysauce wrote:

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

There are legitimate medical reasons for male circumcision, in addition to any religious reasons. And its not like the kids gonna remember it or have reason to regret it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

There are legitimate medical reasons for male circumcision, in addition to any religious reasons. And its not like the kids gonna remember it or have reason to regret it.

Ehhhhh,
There are some people out there who feel loss of sensation in the head and Mid-shaft area from circumcision. and seek surgery to repair.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The thing is, Kids will pick on names no matter what. .

That's no reason to make it easy for them.

Kids pick on things that are different. Sure, if you've got a more normal name, they'll still find something to rhyme it with, or change it to something rude, or whatever, because that's what kids do.

But the kid whose parents thought it was a good idea to name him Circumcision Spinach (Both on the list of presented baby names that were rejected in Australia this year) is going to have a far harder time of it than you will. He's going to face a lifetime of people judging him as a result of his parents being fethwits.

But, then to governement can arguably make it a habit of regulating parenting.
Lets say I want to raise a gender neutral child, like pink and blue, or Dolls and GI joe.
He will have a hard time in school. Knowing that, should the GOVT come in and say "No, your sun likes Trucks"

 filbert wrote:
Reading what some other people have named their kids is an excellent example of why some people should not be allowed to breed.

That a supposedly grown and mature adult could think it acceptable to (allegedly) name a child 'Ferrus Manus' is mind boggling.

I have grown up with a non-normal first name and I know from deep personal experience what an absolute hell it can be.

Is your name actually filbert?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But, then to governement can arguably make it a habit of regulating parenting.

Good. They can start by drug-testing both parents before they're allowed custody of the child, and go from there.


Edit - Of course, that's overlooking the fact that governments already regulate parenting. It's just the extent to which they do so that varies from country to country.

Lets say I want to raise a gender neutral child, like pink and blue, or Dolls and GI joe.
He will have a hard time in school. Knowing that, should the GOVT come in and say "No, your sun likes Trucks"

No, they should go to all those other parents and tell them to stop forcing gender-based stereotypes on their children.

Boys for the most part only think playing with dolls is for girls because their parents told them it was so. Left to their own devices, kids will play with whatever appeals to them at the time.

I played with dolls all the time when I was a kid

 jhe90 wrote:
Well there's sanity.

If you call your kid Adolf in Germany, Poland, Russia, or Israel. for example it may not pass and be kinder to have another name.

Ferrus manus, well they could have chose worse in game names....

Though a list of banned names than a list of approved seems a better system.

Adolf historically was a common German name. Not nearly as cool as Willy though. I always thought Willy Messerschmidt was an awesome name, and someone who would be voted most likely to get drunk in the bar and end up safely landing a plane in a barn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The thing is, Kids will pick on names no matter what.
My name was made fun of so much, and it is arguably common.

Further, teenagers seem to go through a period where they rename themselves among their cohorts. Most of GC's comrades have given themselves different names. one reason The Wife is the Cool Mom is she goes with it and remembers them.

One's given name is Bella. She calls her self Luna. My brain connects Bella Luna together and I have a mad desire to paddle around Venice belting out horribly accented made up Italian songs.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Frank Zappa named his son Dweezil and his daughter Moon Unit.

Yes, Yer'onour, please submit as exhibit A 'Why drugs are bad, m'kay?'

I'm pretty sure Frank Zappa wasn't that into drugs.

I am absolutely sure good ol' Zappa wasn't into drugs. He called people on drugs "donkey-caves in action" and wasn't too happy about the Mother's reputation as a great band to freak out (do drugs) to.

He named his kids stupid names because he was a legendary iconoclast and rabidly anti-authoritarian, not because he was into drugs and thought it was, like, far out, man.

Moon Unit has dropped the Unit part of her name and is just Moon (kinda nice IMO). Dweezil is still Dweezil and if GRRM had invented that word there would be dozens of Dweezils running around too.

Should people be free to call their kids what they want, sure. But an elected government of the people should equally be able to say "that's not a name and we refuse to recognise it in our dealings with you" So put William on your birth certificate and call the kid Billythepumpkinhead all you want in private. Problem solved.

Someone wrote earlier that their niece? was named Isis. I always liked that name but my wife never did. Lucky as it turns out as if my kid had been a few years earlier and she had said yes I to may have had an Isis.

But it gets worse, I also like the idea as Boom as a name for a boy, Its a bit weird but not Pepsi weird. Imagine if I had had twin boy and girl 5 years ago and got my own way naming them..... that would have been awkward at the play ground.

Someone said names without written vowels can't be pronounced. I think YHWH and anyone that speaks Hebrew would disagree.

 Bangbangboom wrote:

Someone said names without written vowels can't be pronounced.

No they didn't.

They said that names just made up of consonants are unpronounceable.

Hebrew has vowels, they're just not written down.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

There are legitimate medical reasons for male circumcision, in addition to any religious reasons. And its not like the kids gonna remember it or have reason to regret it.

There isn't, actually, any compelling medical reason for circumcision to be the norm. There are reasons for it in certain circumstances (pun entirely intended) and, actually, yes, there *are* reasons to regret being circumcised.

Which is probably as far as we need to go with that particular discussion in this thread...

 insaniak wrote:

 Bangbangboom wrote:

Someone said names without written vowels can't be pronounced.

No they didn't.

They said that names just made up of consonants are unpronounceable.

Hebrew has vowels, they're just not written down.

Well, no they didn't.

Someone said a name must be pronounceable in NZ and then went on to give two examples that were not. One that had vowels and one that had none.

An example of how to pronounce the name without written vowels was given (by adding vowel sounds) by another user.

The original user then claimed that that was just them trying to make sense of a word without vowels ("you're adding vowels to make it pronounceable"?)

Paraphrasing that exchange as someone stating "names without written vowels can't be pronounced" seems adequate to me.

Also I never claimed that Hebrew has no vowels, I said that those that speak Hebrew would disagree that a name without written vowels can't be pronounced. The fact that they pronounce vowels but don't (normally) write them was the whole reason I included the modifier "written"

So yeah, there you go. I'm going back to look at the pretty pictures now that I have been reminded why I rarely try to engage in conversation on here.


Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's rule #1

 Bangbangboom wrote:

Paraphrasing that exchange as someone stating "names without written vowels can't be pronounced" seems adequate to me.

That would seem to be where you went wrong, then. Sticking to the actual argument being made is less likely to have someone point out that you're arguing a point that nobody was making.

Boom is an awful name. FFS. Would be a prime candidate to be on the banned list.

There was a time I would have been a little uneasy about needing some level of government approval for names. But that time has long passed now. I don’t know whether the deliberate misspellings of ordinary names or the made up names are worse, but either way I’ve got no problem at all with government shutting them down.

According to this Wikipedia page, some US states have name laws, so really it should not be a complete surprise to US people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_law