Personal names between languages

[Bristel]

Is it Menzees or Mingis? :O :O :O

[din]

If an old Dutch man saw you on the street, and being a particurialy sour individual, called you a "klootzak", would you be able to respond with a sarcastic "dank je?" Or are you still stuck with a sarcastic "dank u?" I feel like in France at least, and this is not from the mouth of a native speaker, but if there were an old woman trying to preach at you in the metro and you felt the need to respond you'd still have to say "vous etes folle ou quoi!?" It sounds hard to imagine someone saying "t'es folle ou quoi!?" So again, in the Netherlands, and old man is being crazy, do you say "Bent u gek!?" or can you say "Ben jij gek!?"

Depends... I also think it's weird that French-speakers keep using vous when they're yelling at someone they don't know. In Dutch I'd switch to 'je' a little sooner, but in your example I'd use 'dank u wel!' to make the difference in politeness even more pronounced, distancing myself from him even further.

[sirdanilot]

the pronoun Is not a matter of politeness but of social distance. u is more distant. soyes I would use u in this case

[linguoboy]

the pronoun Is not a matter of politeness but of social distance. u is more distant. soyes I would use u in this case

Agreed. "Sie Arschloch!" is way ruder than "Du Arschloch!" because the latter is something I might say to a good friend in jest, but the former can only be a deliberate attempt to insult someone I don't know.

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

Depends... I also think it's weird that French-speakers keep using vous when they're yelling at someone they don't know. In Dutch I'd switch to 'je' a little sooner, but in your example I'd use 'dank u wel!' to make the difference in politeness even more pronounced, distancing myself from him even further.

That's because the "tu-vous" distinction is not used to belittle someone. You don't start to tutoyer when you want to sound important; you start to tutoyer when you want to be friendly. Therefore, using "tu" when getting angry would make no sense at all.

(This, with some caveats, applies to all varieties of French that I know; even Quebec French, while being slacker on when to use vous, will not suddenly switch because someone is angry. Leading to "Allez-donc chier, crisse!", which ends with a phatic sacre which definitely sounds angry, unless context.)

[Imralu]

For me, the main thing is my dislike of switching phonologies mid-sentence. It feels like my mouth is held in a different position, ready to make different sounds and it takes time to switch mouth-configurations. Germans always laugh at me when I pronounce English loan words with a uvular /r/, so I try to do it with my regular English /r/ and find that my English mouth-configuration bleeds over into the surrounding German words and suddenly I'm pronouncing warum as [vəˈɹʊm].

All that being said, the short form of my name is pronounced identically in German and English, so it's not an issue for me until I have to give my full name.

Who do you think you are to spit your parents in the face by changing the name they gave you (10).

I dunno, your own person? Who are you to pass judgement on someone's relationship with their parents?

This.

Because your name is what your parents called you, and changing that is preposterous.

No it's not. A lot of things went on between my parents and between them and me (and my brothers) that are far worse than a "preposterous" name change and also worse than metaphorically (or even literally, for that matter) spitting in anyone's face. Parents and their decisions do not automatically deserve respect just because they are your parents. I am currently estranged from my parents - I have a right to be and I get incredibly angry any time I see or hear any insinuation that people in my position are "ungrateful". If I really wanted to change my name, the fact that they gave it to me would be more likely to spur me towards changing it than keeping it.

My father's first name is my middle name. This means that my full name literally contains his first and last name together and I have always resented that. I have had a lot of idle thoughts about legally adding an umlaut to "John" with my middle finger well raised, change it to "Jöhn" just to break that connection. I know Jöhn is not actually an established name and is also potentially "preposterous" and "pretentious", but seeing as no one ever actually uses my middle name, I would not be asking anyone to do anything differently. If I move back to Australia, the umlaut will not be recognised and my name will still look identical but it would just give me a bit of quiet satisfaction to know that "It's actually Jöhn now." Petty as fuck, yes, but my decision. The only thing really holding me back from it at the moment is the worry that it will make paperwork more complicated in future.

And just to stick my neck out for a moment, not specifically to defend Sirdanilot but just because I think the argument is silly: it's a bit silly to criticise him for classifying common Turkish names which happen to have their origin in Arabic or Persian as Turkish names. Let's say there's a Turkish guy called Hüseyin. He is from Turkey and where we live, there is a huge comminity of Turkish people and almost everyone who saw his name would immediately know he is Turkish. Yes, it's originally from Arabic, but it's just as much a Turkish name as Andrew is an English name. Perhaps some of the Hüseyins around here will not be Turkish, and perhaps there may be some Andrews who are not native English speakers, but in the context of being discriminated against based on your name, the etymology of the name is irrelevant. Names that are common among Turkish people can reasonably be called Turkish names when saying that people may be discriminated against for having Turkish names. I'm sure Sirdanilot was not intending to imply that employers will discriminate only against originally Turkic names but not against Turkish loan-names, as if they'd look it up and go "Hmm, Yiğit has a real Turkish name. Let's give the job to Cahit because his name is not originally Turkish and we're discriminating against Turkish people here."

Outside of work I usually just tell them to call me Fin, and most of the time people call me Fin-chan, because, you know, Japanese. At work I very much have the attitude that my students should suck it up and learn my proper name.

Yes, if they're learning English, there's no reason why they can't learn pronounce it as you do or at least aim for that.

To get things back OT one problem I have with my surname Davies is often it's hard for even English speakers to spell it right (too often it ends up as Davis) or prenounced Dayvees, which someone insisted on.

Wait ... so your name is spelt "Davies" but pronounced "Davis"?

[sirdanilot]

You do realize you wouldn't have been alive to even think about changing your name if it weren't for your parents right?

I have had arguments with my parents too, I think everyone has, but for me it's no reason to no longer respect them as being my parents.

[Neon Fox]

You do realize you wouldn't have been alive to even think about changing your name if it weren't for your parents right?

I have had arguments with my parents too, I think everyone has, but for me it's no reason to no longer respect them as being my parents.

It's always so cute when people talk about something they clearly know nothing about.

[linguoboy]

You do realize you wouldn't have been alive to even think about changing your name if it weren't for your parents right?

Gosh, you're right! I hadn't even though about that. Of course, when you put it that way, now I have to ask myself, where the hell did they get off choosing my name for me while their parents were still alive? After all, if it weren't for them etc. etc. They should've let my grandparents choose my name for them. It would've been the respectful thing to do, right?

[Imralu]

Wot? I am well aware that my parents are in the chain of cause and effect that led to my existence. Clearly! That's hardly a revelation. Essentially what you're saying is that causation automatically deserves gratitude.

Seeing as how my Irish grandfather only met my Australian grandmother because the WWII brought him to Australia, I suppose it would be hypocritical of me to oppose Naziism, wouldn't it? Without Hitler, I would not exist to oppose his ideas. Is that where you intended that argument to go?

I really hope you don't think that any children you have are born already in debt to you for the simple fact of their existence and that you can beat them and do what you want to them because you're already on top for creating them and that they'd better never disrespect you by changing the name that you have graciously bestowed upon them. You know that they don't ask to be created and that parenthood brings more responsibilities than rights, right? You know that their lives belong to them and them alone, right?

[Matrix]

Wot? I am well aware that my parents are in the chain of cause and effect that led to my existence. Clearly! That's hardly a revelation. Essentially what you're saying is that causation automatically deserves gratitude.

Seeing as how my Irish grandfather only met my Australian grandmother because the WWII brought him to Australia, I suppose it would be hypocritical of me to oppose Naziism, wouldn't it? Without Hitler, I would not exist. Is that where you intended that argument to go?

I really hope you don't think that any children you have are born already in debt to you for the simple fact of their existence and that you can beat them and do what you want to them because you're already on top for creating them and that they'd better never disrespect you by changing the name that you have graciously bestowed upon them. You know that they don't ask to be created and that parenthood brings more responsibilities than rights, right? You know that their lives belong to them and them alone, right?

I think you just rolled a natural 1 on your Spot Sarcasm check, dude.

[Imralu]

I think you just rolled a natural 1 on your Spot Sarcasm check, dude.

You think Sirdanilot was being sarcastic?

Edit: I don't actually understand your sentence though, so maybe you were saying something else? I googled "roll a natural one" ...

[Neon Fox]

I think you just rolled a natural 1 on your Spot Sarcasm check, dude.

...you think Danny-boy was being sarcastic? It's a pretty standard attempt to inflict shame on someone who's not adequately genuflecting to their parents.

[Matrix]

Were you not responding to Linguoboy, Imralu? Because I thought you were, what with your post's lack of a quote or name indicating otherwise.

[Imralu]

, Nah I'm on my phone and it's hard to do quotes. I figured it was clear since this is basically a Sirdanilot-vs-the-world thread and everyone's replying to his reply to me.

[Boşkoventi]

Were you not responding to Linguoboy, Imralu? Because I thought you were, what with your post's lack of a quote or name indicating otherwise.

I'm pretty sure he was responding to sirdanilot (EDIT: confirmed). Because reading comprehension (i.e. Imralu's post only makes sense as a response to sirdanilot's "You do realize ..." comment.)

[linguoboy]

It happens to be Mother's Day here in the States, so I called my mother (as you do). I thought it would be a 15-20-minute call but it morphed into a rambling hour-and-a-half-long discussion. At the end, I threw in the question, "So what do you think about the notion that changing the name your parents gave you is an act of disrespect toward them?" This had literally never occurred to her before, but after she'd had a moment to think about it, she said, "If parents truly love that child, they won't feel disrespected." Then she was off talking about how being a good parent means respecting your children as adults (and, even when they're younger, respecting the adult that child will become) and accepting their adult choices, even when you may not agree with them.

But then, she's an American Catholic, not a Dutch Calvinist, so she has no real notion what the Fourth Commandment is all about. (See! She can't even get the numbering right!)

[Imralu]

I was trying really hard to ignore this line, and I don't want to escalate things and get this thread locked, and I've dumped enough of my emotional crap on here for a lifetime and I have every reason to suspect you're all as tired of this as I am, but every time I open this page, this line jumps right out at me and I can't ignore it anymore so I'm just going to let the the verbal diarrhoea flow through my keyboard for a moment ...

I have had arguments with my parents too, I think everyone has, but for me it's no reason to no longer respect them as being my parents.

Arguments? Really? That's the word you're using for this? Everyone has arguments with their parents, so there's excuse for being ungrateful, right?

Since you seem to be the expert, maybe you can tell me how to let people actually touch me without fucking flinching? Maybe you can tell me how to not have flashbacks when people are just joking around with me. Maybe you can tell me how to get to the point where I can talk about my past without either completely falling to pieces or holding the tears in but uncontrollably shaking so bad my teeth chatter. Maybe you can figure out how to help my brothers get to the point that they are strong enough to leave that house and start living their own lives. Maybe you can tell me how to sit down and start writing an email to get in contact again without crying at "hi". Until then, maybe you can acknowledge that it was a bit more than "arguments" in my family, and there are others who go through far worse than we did, and if anyone really needs to cut their parents out of their life for their own well-being, then they should be supported rather than criticised because the arguments you're using to criticise them are ridiculous and offensive.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "respect them as being my parents." I don't wish any ill on my parents. I respect them as human beings who have rights. Is that enough for you? I do not feel they have a right to have me in their life anymore when it is to my detriment. Would you disagree? This is not about trying to hurt them. It's about protecting myself. I hate that I'm probably hurting my mother right now. At the moment, I am not strong enough to deal with them. I do not know how long this will be the case, but even if it is forever, that is up to me and your judgement is not going to fix the situation. Maybe you will call this selfish and trust me, there is a massive struggle going on inside me on this very point and this is not something I'm taking lightly. They are haunting me in my dreams.

Also, since you brought it up, if you are going to ask me to respect both of them, that causes a huge conflict of interests. If I respect my mother and my father, I am respecting a woman and, at the same time, the man who trapped her in marriage and violently raped her for years with no remorse. I find it hard to find a definition of respect that allows me to say that I respect and love her and also respect him. It took me a long time to stop the hate that I felt for him burning inside of me - I simply can't maintain hate forever and it's much better for me to have moved past that - but I most definitely did not stop hating him because he deserves his son's respect. My mother did the best she could, and I wish her the best, but I simply can't deal with either of them right now. The umlaut thing is an idle thought that I will probably never act on, but for people out there who do want to change their name because they can't bear to be reminded of their family, the parents "right" to have the names they chose respected is insignificant next to the rights of the individual to find happiness with the life that has been given (not loaned) to them. Also, surely the fact that I have not contacted my parents for over six months, including Christmas and Mother's Day, is a far worse sin against my parents than changing my name would be.

Here are a couple of things to read:
All humans are born ... in debt to their parents?
Came up in my FB feed yesterday.

And before anyone tells me how pointless that was, I probably wrote that more for me than in the hope of actually making a difference to someone else's opinion. Let's see though ...

[jmcd]

This is not the same phenomenon, though.

No, but I thought it was related.

I suppose they are insofar as contemporary society is extremely intolerant of variation. A century ago, you could still vary the spelling of your personal name and not necessarily suffer much in the way of consequences for it. Nowadays that just doesn't fly, at least in dealing with modern bureaucracies. Willm Shakespeare is simply not the same person as William Shakspere, let alone Guglielmo Shakespeare. (Several weeks ago, I tried to take care of something at the Social Security office, but because the only ID with me listed a slightly different version of my surname than what they had on file, he told me that, officially, he couldn't be certain he was speaking to the same person. Never mind what possible reason there could be for a person who was not me requesting a copy of my social security card. I told him, "This is close enough for the IRS!" but that cut no ice.)

This is also related to the fact that contemporary society is extremely intolerant of variation in language in general. Whether it's between languages or within languages, a certain degree of uniformity is now as the norm where it was unheard-of a few centuries back.

[linguoboy]

Thank you for trying to get this thread back on track.

(The theological discussion can now be found in Ephemera.)

[alynnidalar]

Minor side note, I guess, but sirdanilot, I am deeply curious about your views on Peter being called "Peter" and "Cephas" rather than his birth name of "Simon". (and we get a double there, because "Cephas" is a translated form of "Peter") I'm also curious if you think it was appropriate for the apostle Paul to call himself "Paul"; after all, his parents gave him the name "Saul".

If this is too tied to religion, I'll post it on the other thread, but I just wanted to point out that as a Calvinist, surely you respect Paul and Peter and would say they were generally quite spiritual and moral people--yet both of them used names that their parents did not give them! Are we to then conclude that Paul and Peter were horrible children who disrespected their parents? Or should we instead conclude that cultural attitudes differ and there are many perfectly legitimate reasons why a person might use a different name than the one they were born with?

There are many other examples from Scripture that I'd be delighted to bring up, if you're interested. Naomi is another good one, asking that she be called Mara because she felt her original name no longer reflected her life.

[sirdanilot]

I have said that different cultures have different values regarding names, and it's appropriate to follow your culture. In Western culture changing the name your parents gave you is a slap in the face of your parents. In Biblical times, the meaning of names were much more important, and you see people changing their name after important revents in their lives.

[gestaltist]

Minor side note, I guess, but sirdanilot, I am deeply curious about your views on Peter being called "Peter" and "Cephas" rather than his birth name of "Simon". (and we get a double there, because "Cephas" is a translated form of "Peter") I'm also curious if you think it was appropriate for the apostle Paul to call himself "Paul"; after all, his parents gave him the name "Saul".

Yeah. Both St. Peter and St. Paul were clearly pretentious douches with no sense of respect towards their parents. And Jesus only instigated the behavior of St. Peter. What was he thinking?!

I have said that different cultures have different values regarding names, and it's appropriate to follow your culture. In Western culture changing the name your parents gave you is a slap in the face of your parents. In Biblical times, the meaning of names were much more important, and you see people changing their name after important revents in their lives.

Well, the Western European culture is becoming increasingly atheist. So... by that logic, being a Christian is a slap in the face to everyone else? Or being a Christian or atheist in an islamic state is disrespectful and pretentious? Have you ever heard of pluralism? Freedom of thought and speech? People being different?

[jal]

In Western culture changing the name your parents gave you is a slap in the face of your parents.

So, now you don't just speak for Dutch culture, it's Western culture now. Please provide some evidence, that all or most of Western culture considers it this way.


JAL

[linguoboy]

In Western culture changing the name your parents gave you is a slap in the face of your parents.

So, now you don't just speak for Dutch culture, it's Western culture now. Please provide some evidence, that all or most of Western culture considers it this way.

I suppose one could start by looking at Western case law. I've seen judges in Western countries give various reasons for denying a change of name, but "because it's a slap in the face to your parents" isn't among them.