New Post
Search
HelpRe: Wilds, Wildes, Wilder
in reply to a message by Martha
I think Wilder is more similar to names like Harlow, Poe, Cash, Nash, Cullen, Bronte, Monroe, Flannery, that rely on a more cultural (literary or pop) image, than it is like Walker (Walker makes me think of Johnnie, it's more generic and westerny and casual and random, like Cooper or Carson or Roscoe or Ryder or Landon).
I see the appeal of the sound and sort of outdoorsy-but-civilized vibe. On paper anyway. I think the -ild- or -ildz sound is a little difficult and awkward to say, though, used as a name that people had to say to him all the time. It'd come easier, and be less dorky and more real-person-ish, if he were nn'ed Wiley.
I'd call it a GP myself. To me it seems that way. But you seem to feel less G and more P than I would - I guess the associations I have (partying/animals, Laura, Oscar Wilde) bother you less than they bother me. And that's okay with me. It's not like it's a horrible name. I could call a guy Wildes or Wilder. I wouldn't really like it, I'd think it was a little silly and self-conscious, but I'd get used to it. As long as we didn't go to bed, haha. It'd become 'just his name' over time, and not stay distracting forever.
Wilds seems more word-y and eccentric, less namey. But it isn't unusable, for you if you like it a lot.
My opinion would be higher, if you just named him Wildes or Wilder and called him that, than if you named him Thomas Wilder with the intention of calling him Wilder. If you really don't think you'd ever call him Wilder, then you could "hide" it in the MN slot. But I think if you're going to use a name you're crazy about, and it's more important to you than any potentially negative impressions anyone might take, then bloody well own it. Don't hedge by saying his "real" FN is Thomas. If he's Wilder Thomas and doesn't like Wilder, then he could choose to go by Thomas.
- mirfak
I see the appeal of the sound and sort of outdoorsy-but-civilized vibe. On paper anyway. I think the -ild- or -ildz sound is a little difficult and awkward to say, though, used as a name that people had to say to him all the time. It'd come easier, and be less dorky and more real-person-ish, if he were nn'ed Wiley.
I'd call it a GP myself. To me it seems that way. But you seem to feel less G and more P than I would - I guess the associations I have (partying/animals, Laura, Oscar Wilde) bother you less than they bother me. And that's okay with me. It's not like it's a horrible name. I could call a guy Wildes or Wilder. I wouldn't really like it, I'd think it was a little silly and self-conscious, but I'd get used to it. As long as we didn't go to bed, haha. It'd become 'just his name' over time, and not stay distracting forever.
Wilds seems more word-y and eccentric, less namey. But it isn't unusable, for you if you like it a lot.
My opinion would be higher, if you just named him Wildes or Wilder and called him that, than if you named him Thomas Wilder with the intention of calling him Wilder. If you really don't think you'd ever call him Wilder, then you could "hide" it in the MN slot. But I think if you're going to use a name you're crazy about, and it's more important to you than any potentially negative impressions anyone might take, then bloody well own it. Don't hedge by saying his "real" FN is Thomas. If he's Wilder Thomas and doesn't like Wilder, then he could choose to go by Thomas.
- mirfak
This message was edited 10/13/2019, 1:26 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1