Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.