New Post
Search
Help"Tryndee" and name nerds
Just an observation but have you noticed that many self proclaimed "name nerds" seem to think that no names are "legit" if they were created after the 15th century, suitable surnames like Beverly can't be repurposed as first names, and names mainly used by the working class can be derided as "chav" and "bogan" names.
(Have you noticed that when the working class are useful to the radical middle class, they are the sacred "proletariat", but when they are not, they are "chavs" and "bogans")
(Have you noticed that when the working class are useful to the radical middle class, they are the sacred "proletariat", but when they are not, they are "chavs" and "bogans")
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
No. I haven't noticed any of that.
Beverly is loved by a few people on this board. Not every working class name is considered "chav" or "bogan" etc.
I think you just want a political argument.
Beverly is loved by a few people on this board. Not every working class name is considered "chav" or "bogan" etc.
I think you just want a political argument.
1
Yes, we do specialize in perpetuating historical aesthetic standards here. I acknowledge that some trendy names occasionally do become a part of historical standard, noting, as you remarked, that they all had to be invented sometime.
I think we, as a group, are more often postmodernist (combining bits from all eras, one is era is not regarded with higher value over others), rather than modernists (trying to make everything new from scratch, abandoning tradition). That is appropriate, as we live in a postmodern era in art, music, architecture, and philosophy -- a reaction against the modernist era.
The modernist era, to many, created far too much homogeny (an interesting song describing this is "Little Boxes" by Malvina Reynolds), thus, new artists are seeking to bring out individual voices and styles by combining elements from all over history. We have access to it all!
I also consider "name nerds" to be another form of artist with a distinct medium, rather than simply a nerd who is merely obsessed with absorbing something without any creative input.
I think we, as a group, are more often postmodernist (combining bits from all eras, one is era is not regarded with higher value over others), rather than modernists (trying to make everything new from scratch, abandoning tradition). That is appropriate, as we live in a postmodern era in art, music, architecture, and philosophy -- a reaction against the modernist era.
The modernist era, to many, created far too much homogeny (an interesting song describing this is "Little Boxes" by Malvina Reynolds), thus, new artists are seeking to bring out individual voices and styles by combining elements from all over history. We have access to it all!
I also consider "name nerds" to be another form of artist with a distinct medium, rather than simply a nerd who is merely obsessed with absorbing something without any creative input.
This message was edited 12/14/2014, 10:01 AM
1
I think you''re making sweeping generalizations.
1
Guess I'm not a name nerd. Goodbye everyone.
1
LOL
1
Yes, I have, and it's annoying. The same names are discussed, over and over again...the same lovely, "safe" names. I have nothing against them- I might even LIKE a lot of them- but I'm tired of not branching out and discussing names that aren't part of that heard-of-but-not-too-popular-and-oh-my-isn't-it- lovely crowd. It's boring, and that is why I haven't been posting on Ops as much as I used to. Apologies if this isn't exactly what you're talking about, but I guess I just wanted to get that off my chest. :P
This message was edited 12/13/2014, 8:57 AM
1
But when you post about a name which isn't part of that crowd, do you at least get a decent number of responses, even though the responses may be mostly negative? If that's the case, that wouldn't deter me, personally, from posting. What I don't like is getting very few responses, which is why I stopped posting about very unusual and unique names.
1
Yes, hearing mostly negative responses deters me from posting, or at least from posting as much as I used to. Makes me think people lack imagination. I know I sound like a douche right now, but that's how I feel.
This message was edited 12/13/2014, 9:18 AM
1
I agree with you about negative posting... to a point. It's probably because not liking a name on sight stirs more reason to respond than liking one.
In general, I think that names with a Latin or English root tend to fare better on these boards than names with African or Asian heritage...
It's probably just because the sounds are more familiar to our internal lexicon and therefore seem more appealing.
In any case, I don't think it means that namenerds are being snotty... however, I do agree that the lack of discussion when I post really unique names makes me stick to those that are latin-based.
However- when I find something rare or appealing to me... I will still likely post. the discussion boards are far more forgiving than the opinions polls (in which the opinion of almost any name list I post there is overwhelmingly negative).
In general, I think that names with a Latin or English root tend to fare better on these boards than names with African or Asian heritage...
It's probably just because the sounds are more familiar to our internal lexicon and therefore seem more appealing.
In any case, I don't think it means that namenerds are being snotty... however, I do agree that the lack of discussion when I post really unique names makes me stick to those that are latin-based.
However- when I find something rare or appealing to me... I will still likely post. the discussion boards are far more forgiving than the opinions polls (in which the opinion of almost any name list I post there is overwhelmingly negative).
1
Name nerds have an appreciation for the etymology and history of a name. So, of course, you will find that they sway more towards names that are richer in those aspects.
1
I agree.
Of course that doesn't excuse snobbishness about newer names, but I completely agree that "name nerds" will naturally gravitate toward the names with more history behind them.
Of course that doesn't excuse snobbishness about newer names, but I completely agree that "name nerds" will naturally gravitate toward the names with more history behind them.
1
I think the lower classes, the "proletariat" would be more useful to the patricians or the upper classes than they would the middle classes. The bourgeoisie in Marxist terms wouldn't be the middle class as we think of it today. They'd be wealthier. The petty bourgeoisie might be more equivalent to modern day middle classes. The proletariat would be the ones whose labor makes the upper classes wealthy. The middle classes would just be another (albeit larger) cog in the capitalist wheel. (Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.) I wonder if the middle classes are so disdainful of the lower classes because 1) they have climbed out of the lower class and are desperate to distinguish themselves or 2) they are anxious about falling back into the lower classes and thus they are desperate to distinguish themselves?
I too am a bit offended by chav and bogan, as I am by "white trash," the equivalent in my country. Not that I'm not guilty of using "white trash" from time to time. But I don't think there's much use in trying to argue about names using this kind of logic. I think must of us realize our opinions on names are wholly subjective and mostly irrational. It doesn't matter if you argue that a name like Kaylee might well be a classic one day (as the little black dress was once considered new and vulgar); it doesn't really matter to namenerds, because we already realize our name preferences are based on taste, which isn't, obviously, objective.
I too am a bit offended by chav and bogan, as I am by "white trash," the equivalent in my country. Not that I'm not guilty of using "white trash" from time to time. But I don't think there's much use in trying to argue about names using this kind of logic. I think must of us realize our opinions on names are wholly subjective and mostly irrational. It doesn't matter if you argue that a name like Kaylee might well be a classic one day (as the little black dress was once considered new and vulgar); it doesn't really matter to namenerds, because we already realize our name preferences are based on taste, which isn't, obviously, objective.
This message was edited 12/13/2014, 8:33 AM
1
Very true about the "proletariat." Typically, it is the extremely wealthy and politicians who exploit the impoverished. The middle class often are used as the scape goat by the true bourgeoisie.
Personally, I don't necessarily link chav and "white trash" with socioeconomic status. Instead I think of it more broadly as the taste embodying Weird Al Yankovich's song "Tacky" who may be filth rich but still lack class. Of course, the fact that I'm familiar with that song probably makes me a little tacky.
Personally, I don't necessarily link chav and "white trash" with socioeconomic status. Instead I think of it more broadly as the taste embodying Weird Al Yankovich's song "Tacky" who may be filth rich but still lack class. Of course, the fact that I'm familiar with that song probably makes me a little tacky.
This message was edited 12/16/2014, 4:45 AM
1
When people are "nerds" about anything, whether it be food, wine, literature, music, or names, they will prefer the high-quality over the low quality. A gourmet will prefer the cheese ravioli with fresh tomato and artichoke sauce, prepared by the chefs at a five star restaurant, to the Chef Boy-Ar-Dee ravioli in a can, which is popped open and the contents dumped into a bowl which is then thrust into the microwave, the same way that a name nerd will prefer Alice to Mackynzee.
This message was edited 12/13/2014, 8:41 AM
1
What you're talking about is onomastic purists. They're probably just as annoying (if not more so) than people who worship "tryndee" names. Though I understand what you're saying.
If you don't like what they're saying, just don't listen. It's okay to use names that was created in the modern era. It's okay to use a name like Kaylee or Jayden if you really like it - no one's stopping you from doing it. I see nothing wrong with using surnames as first names. Some purists will accept them only if there's a family connection.
At their worst, purists might actually bash people for their names. It's no different from, say, anime fans who go ballistic because you hate their favorite shipping, a certain character on the show who's popular (or like a character who's hated), or even the show itself.
I think purists really need to grow up and realize that not everyone is as into names as they are. They don't reflect name nerds as a whole.
To be honest, I think the terms "chav" and "bogan" are thrown around way too much. Overuse of those terms is pretty classist IMO (especially when people apply them to working-class people in general instead of just ones who are trashy). People who overuse those terms aren't any better than the ones they complain about.
If you don't like what they're saying, just don't listen. It's okay to use names that was created in the modern era. It's okay to use a name like Kaylee or Jayden if you really like it - no one's stopping you from doing it. I see nothing wrong with using surnames as first names. Some purists will accept them only if there's a family connection.
At their worst, purists might actually bash people for their names. It's no different from, say, anime fans who go ballistic because you hate their favorite shipping, a certain character on the show who's popular (or like a character who's hated), or even the show itself.
I think purists really need to grow up and realize that not everyone is as into names as they are. They don't reflect name nerds as a whole.
To be honest, I think the terms "chav" and "bogan" are thrown around way too much. Overuse of those terms is pretty classist IMO (especially when people apply them to working-class people in general instead of just ones who are trashy). People who overuse those terms aren't any better than the ones they complain about.
This message was edited 12/13/2014, 6:59 AM
1
I might point out that the terms chav and (totally just forgot the other term) are culturally specific to the UK. So I, though I consider myself a namenerd, would never use them.
I also think it's a stretch to say that not liking modern names is a blanket characteristic of namenerds. It it's really only a few outspoken few (as you say purists) that feel that way.
I happen to appreciate older and more established names but don't consider them better. I actually love the idea that people are naming for the meaning again.
To be honest I am more interested in naming traditions than names.
It's true that creative names sometimes really bother me but those are usually ones that have totally unnecessary spelling alterations that make them confusing, not from a sense of superiority in classic naming versus modern naming.
Just remember that everyone has their own opinion, and even if that opinion annoys others it is theirs to have.
I also think it's a stretch to say that not liking modern names is a blanket characteristic of namenerds. It it's really only a few outspoken few (as you say purists) that feel that way.
I happen to appreciate older and more established names but don't consider them better. I actually love the idea that people are naming for the meaning again.
To be honest I am more interested in naming traditions than names.
It's true that creative names sometimes really bother me but those are usually ones that have totally unnecessary spelling alterations that make them confusing, not from a sense of superiority in classic naming versus modern naming.
Just remember that everyone has their own opinion, and even if that opinion annoys others it is theirs to have.
1
Wow, that's a news flash.
Welcome to the real world.
Welcome to the real world.
1