tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 27 09:01:22 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Name transliteration rules?
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Name transliteration rules?
- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 12:01:18 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Oct 27, 95 06:53:02 am
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
...
> Yes. I find it kind of interesting the way I as an English-speaker find
> names that are understandable to sound so odd. :) We're so used to names
> being just sounds that we forget that they started out as something
> meaningful, and so when we come across a language that preserves that and
> actually *translates* its names back, it sounds strange to us.
>
> 'Course, that's more true (in English) with men's names than women's
> names. I can offhand think of very few men's names in English which have
> direct English meanings (maybe "Cliff"? :}), but among women's
> names... Rose, Pearl, Heather, Ivy, Ruby, Violet, Daisy...
>
> ~mark
I see it as one of those legitimate gripes of feminists. You
don't name a man after a thing. You name him after another man.
While women are named for things of beauty, since that's all
they are, after all...
Or so say those who deserve the rath of said feminists.
My own sense is that while many women have indeed among the most
beautiful images my eyes have had the priviledge of enjoying,
their personhood is no point of question. Like many things, I
wish this discrepancy between genders had not evolved, yet here
it is, and a Rose is a person after whom another person may be
named without reference to the flower, which while living is
not at all as clearly scentient as the person sharing the name.
Besides, my most interesting newest friend is named "Corky".
Figure THAT one out.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |