Naming your child.

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: I honestly think it's awful when parents give their child a perfectly normal name with an ridiculous spelling.  That individual will have to spell out his or her name every time. Also, one of my students is named Garnea.  It is pronounced "Zhuh-nay."  I can actually see that.  The soft "G" is pronounced almost like a harder "zh", so dropping the harder part of that sound leaves you with "Zh" and "nea" could be pronounced "nay" and probably is in several words.  That just leaves the silent "r" - nothing wrong with silent letters.  And "zhuh-nay" sounds much prettier than say "Gar (with a hard G)-nee-ah". How about Orangejello pronounced "Uh-rahn-zhuh-lo" with stress on the second and fourth syllables instead of the usual 1st and 3rd.  Don't worry, Rob, the name is yours to use for your next child.  I stake no claim to it.  Or then there's my name.  Spelled "Chester" but pronounced "Mister Love".

My friends attended school with twins named Orangelo and Lemongelo (or some such spelling).

aginor wrote: sounds french ^

No, it doesn't.

Epignosis wrote: I honestly think it's awful when parents give their child a perfectly normal name with an ridiculous spelling.  That individual will have to spell out his or her name every time. Also, one of my students is named Garnea.  It is pronounced "Zhuh-nay."

I can actually see that.  The soft "G" is pronounced almost like a harder "zh", so dropping the harder part of that sound leaves you with "Zh" and "nea" could be pronounced "nay" and probably is in several words.  That just leaves the silent "r" - nothing wrong with silent letters.  And "zhuh-nay" sounds much prettier than say "Gar (with a hard G)-nee-ah".

How about Orangejello pronounced "Uh-rahn-zhuh-lo" with stress on the second and fourth syllables instead of the usual 1st and 3rd.  Don't worry, Rob, the name is yours to use for your next child.  I stake no claim to it. 

Or then there's my name.  Spelled "Chester" but pronounced "Mister Love". 


Edited by The Doctor - October 29 2011 at 16:21

I think the parents should get an all expense paid trip to Auschwitz, where they can have the heads shaved and the fillings from their teeth removed and then spend a few nights locked in one of the gas chambers. Deluxe accomodations. 

Epignosis wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: But what about the torment the child will go through as he's growing up? I think it is child abuse and it is not a parent's right to do whatever they damn well please with their or to their children.  They are not a property interest.  Of course, I'm against white supremacists being able to breed in the first place.  Suppose you named your child "Cyrus Worthington Black." Then, three weeks after the child was born, a man named "Cyrus Worthington" makes huge news by bombing fourteen Chicago buildings in the same day, killing an estimated 1,700 people. Are you then guilty of child abuse for your child's name? Not sure how that applies to Doc's position, Rob. It's not intentionally giving your child the name of a hugely controversial figure, which is obviously not OK.   It applies: What I'm interested to know is vested in that qualifier you just used.  Is it the name itself that makes it child abuse, or is it the motivation of the parents?  If a couple who'd honestly never heard of Adolf Hitler named their child that, would that be child abuse? Just participating in and exploring the topic.

Intention is almost always relevant to a criminal act.  Child abuse is no different.  For example, if I pick up my child and throw him to the ground - that's abuse.  If I pick up my child and while holding him/her lose my footing or balance and drop the child - the injuries may be the same, but there was no intent to harm the child and therefore, no abuse. 

In the extremely unlikely event that someone had never heard of Hitler, but named their child Adolph Hitler, no it would not be abuse.  Simply ignorance. 

it is the same story with the name Judas, no one names their kid with that name even if the guy who had the name supposedly died 2011 years ago or so, stil it is not a popular name to many persons, why arent people braking the mold and naming their kid Judas then it is a okey name i think...

I honestly think it's awful when parents give their child a perfectly normal name with an ridiculous spelling.  That individual will have to spell out his or her name every time.

Also, one of my students is named Garnea.  It is pronounced "Zhuh-nay." 

harmonium.ro wrote: ^ I think it would be unintentional abuse. :P  But that's a completely hypothetical situation, the chances for a, say, Mr. & Mrs Schmidt couple naming their child Adolf Hitler Schmidt without knowing who Adolf Hitler was are zero IMO.

Not zero- stranger things have happened.

^ I think it would be unintentional abuse. :P 

Edited by harmonium.ro - October 29 2011 at 10:08

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: But what about the torment the child will go through as he's growing up? I think it is child abuse and it is not a parent's right to do whatever they damn well please with their or to their children.  They are not a property interest.  Of course, I'm against white supremacists being able to breed in the first place.  Suppose you named your child "Cyrus Worthington Black." Then, three weeks after the child was born, a man named "Cyrus Worthington" makes huge news by bombing fourteen Chicago buildings in the same day, killing an estimated 1,700 people. Are you then guilty of child abuse for your child's name?