CathInfo.com

I don't quite have the energy for a long disquisition tonight, but perhaps there are a few bullet points that could be profitably added to this discussion.

Point One: Our idea that certain names are rigidly masculine or feminine is, at least in part, an artifact of the English language's heavy reliance on personal pronouns and prepositions to elaborate the grammatical connections within a sentence. In Romance languages this issue simply would not arise; for in those languages the roots of the names themselves are often neutral, and it's easy to masculinize or feminize them merely by changing one of the vowels. Compare Mario/Maria in Italian, for instance, or Francis/Frances in French. I'm suprised that s2srea and PereJoseph, who seem to have set themselves up as our resident defenders of all things anti-Anglo, have not already lept upon this distinction, for it is one of the few matters on which their point would be well taken.  :wink:

Point Two: I see nothing intrinsically wrong wth being named after a place. A large percentage of the surnames in use in English today were originally place-names (from France! Go figure). This practice is nearly universal amongst the noblesse of Old Europe. Too wit, the man who is called Lord Shaftesbury really is the Lord of (or at least in) Shaftesbury, and it isn't hard to see why this convention was adopted. The higher up the social hierarchy one is, the more responsibility one has for ruling and administering a place, the greater becomes the need to identify his very self with it. The man will either take the name of the place to himself, or he will give the place his own name. The symbols used in heraldry are a closely connected manifestation of the same phenomenon. Since the fortunes of a country largely wax and wane with fortunes of its noblest families, this practice makes a great deal of sense. The state is the ruling class, the ruling class is the state: in Germanic languages, the words referring to each are usually cognate. In a similar vein, there is also a long and honored history of taking one's surname after the trade one practices, or the town one was born in, or the family name of one's benefactor. All these names are suppoosed to mean something. It is as if they were saying, "I'm proud of my country, town, work, mother's estate, father's estate, Lord's estate, etc., and I belong to it. This is who I am." The only thing that's ridiculous is giving a child the name of a place or benefactor that the child has no real association with. Thus, a little girl dubbed Austin, but born in Sacramento, with no heritage in Texas whatsoever, is ridiculous for being irrelevent, but not merely because her name is that of a place. On this view, it is also quite ridiculous for people who no longer practice Christianity to go on giving their children Christian names. How many Nathans, Stevens, Johns, and Marks do you know who are out-and-out worldlings and have no part in the Kingdom of Heaven at all?

Point Three: There is nothing objectionable about carrying on a name that has an important place in the family's history. If you want make the child's first name his mother's maiden name, or the name of a beloved sibling who died young, or the name of your pastor, or the name of the neighbor who gave your grandfather money when he lost his job at the packing plant -- regardless of whether that particular name really "suits" the child -- this is a good and noble thing. That's a name you can be proud of, and if anybody tries to talk it down, punch 'em in the mouth.

Point Four: I think the real issue here is not gender-confused names considered per se, but the fact that so many people today give their children snappy sounding names, seemingly for no other reason then to be different and "cool." From the child's very first moment on earth, he becomes an accessory to his parents' wardrobe: a prized, spoiled, and vetted little creature who was birthed only because mommy and daddy thought it was the right time to add "children" to their list of social accomplishments. A slightly gender-bent name gives an irresistable spicyness to the whole affair, especially for girls, who will be more encouraged to succeed in the traditionally male realms of moneymaking and professional certification, then any of today's unfortunate sons will be.

Point One: Our idea that certain names are rigidly masculine or feminine is, at least in part, an artifact of the English language's heavy reliance on personal pronouns and prepositions to elaborate the grammatical connections within a sentence.

What exactly are you trying to say here?

In Romance languages this issue simply would not arise;

How can you be sure that this is always the case for everything pertaining to Romance languages?

for in those languages the roots of the names themselves are often neutral, and it's easy to masculinize or feminize them merely by changing one of the vowels. Compare Mario/Maria in Italian, for instance, or Francis/Frances in French. I'm suprised that s2srea and PereJoseph, who seem to have set themselves up as our resident defenders of all things anti-Anglo, have not already lept upon this distinction, for it is one of the few matters on which their point would be well taken.  :wink:

Why are you talking about names in languages other than English? What is the reasoning for this. Does it really make sense to be talking about names of another language when this discussion has thus far been in English and about names that are English?

Point Two: I see nothing intrinsically wrong wth being named after a place.

Is that the issue?

A large percentage of the surnames in use in English today were originally place-names (from France! Go figure). This practice is nearly universal amongst the noblesse of Old Europe. Too wit, the man who is called Lord Shaftesbury really is the Lord of (or at least in) Shaftesbury, and it isn't hard to see why this convention was adopted. The higher up the social hierarchy one is, the more responsibility one has for ruling and administering a place, the greater becomes the need to identify his very self with it. The man will either take the name of the place to himself, or he will give the place his own name.

Why are you talking about being named after places? Is the issue about being named after a place, or is it about girls being names that have been traditionally given to boys since the beginning of their use as names for people.

The symbols used in heraldry are a closely connected manifestation of the same phenomenon. Since the fortunes of a country largely wax and wane with fortunes of its noblest families, this practice makes a great deal of sense. The state is the ruling class, the ruling class is the state: in Germanic languages, the words referring to each are usually cognate. In a similar vein, there is also a long and honored history of taking one's surname after the trade one practices, or the town one was born in, or the family name of one's benefactor. All these names are suppoosed to mean something. It is as if they were saying, "I'm proud of my country, town, work, mother's estate, father's estate, Lord's estate, etc., and I belong to it. This is who I am." The only thing that's ridiculous is giving a child the name of a place or benefactor that the child has no real association with. Thus, a little girl dubbed Austin, but born in Sacramento, with no heritage in Texas whatsoever, is ridiculous for being irrelevent, but not merely because her name is that of a place. On this view, it is also quite ridiculous for people who no longer practice Christianity to go on giving their children Christian names. How many Nathans, Stevens, Johns, and Marks do you know who are out-and-out worldlings and have no part in the Kingdom of Heaven at all?

Would you not agree that the issue is about girls being given names that are traditionally given to boys and not about whether or not one has any sort of relationship with some sort of place?

Point Three: There is nothing objectionable about carrying on a name that has an important place in the family's history.

Did anyone say that it was?

If you want make the child's first name his mother's maiden name, or the name of a beloved sibling who died young, or the name of your pastor, or the name of the neighbor who gave your grandfather money when he lost his job at the packing plant -- regardless of whether that particular name really "suits" the
child -- this is a good and noble thing.

According to whom is this a "good and noble thing"?

That's a name you can be proud of, and if anybody tries to talk it down, punch 'em in the mouth.

Why would you punch someone in the mouth simply for not taking a liking to a certain name?

Point Four: I think the real issue here is not gender-confused names considered per se, but the fact that so many people today give their children snappy sounding names, seemingly for no other reason then to be different and "cool."

What is meant by the term "snappy"? Also, what do you mean when you use the phrase "per se"? If I've created a thread about how I dislike girls being given names that have been given names that are traditionally given to boys, would you not agree that the issue at hand is what I've made the topic out to be? For if it were not the issue, it would not be discussed and you would not even be able to say that that's not the issue "per se", would it not?

From the child's very first moment on earth, he becomes an accessory to his parents' wardrobe: a prized, spoiled, and vetted little creature who was birthed only because mommy and daddy thought it was the right time to add "children" to their list of social accomplishments.

Is this the case for everyone?

A slightly gender-bent name gives an irresistable spicyness to the whole affair, especially for girls, who will be more encouraged to succeed in the traditionally male realms of moneymaking and professional certification, then any of today's unfortunate sons will be.

Why do you say that girls will be more encouraged to succeed in the traditionally male realms of moneymaking and professional certification? What is your reasoning behind this?

Evelyn Waugh was briefly "married" (it was annulled) to a woman called.... Evelyn.