New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Modern Names
in reply to a message by TMyers
I think the whole idea of "names aren't what they used to be" tends to lose steam pretty quickly. Every new trend always looks odd to those accustomed to a different naming system.
While I agree that many of the names you've chosen are, well, bad, one does have to consider that there are a fair number of names now regarded as standard that, too, were once just a collection of syllables that someone thought was pretty.
(For what it's worth, some of the names you've chosen have been so normalized that I don't view them as aberrations of normal names - Mackenzie, Paisley, Stevie, Brayden... I don't like them, but I don't wince in the same way because I do think they've been normalized.)
Also, in the US at least, one should keep in mind that while there are names that are just random collections of syllables that have been deemed attractive, there is a real move towards the revitalization of names once deemed dated. I loved my grandmother but always thought her name - Mavis - was objectively ugly. Now it's on the rise. I'm not sure that those two moves are equitable in distribution, but those trends are operating next to one another.
It does seem incongruous that Mavis and Oaklynn are both mid-tier popular names in the world today, because they do seem to represent such different conceptions of names. But I think that incongruity has existed for a long time.
I'd also just say that there are some "classic" names that I view as hideous as t i do, say, Saylor. You're never going to catch me mourning for days when little girls were named Blanche or Beulah.
Andrew
put a smile on your face - make the world a better place (:
While I agree that many of the names you've chosen are, well, bad, one does have to consider that there are a fair number of names now regarded as standard that, too, were once just a collection of syllables that someone thought was pretty.
(For what it's worth, some of the names you've chosen have been so normalized that I don't view them as aberrations of normal names - Mackenzie, Paisley, Stevie, Brayden... I don't like them, but I don't wince in the same way because I do think they've been normalized.)
Also, in the US at least, one should keep in mind that while there are names that are just random collections of syllables that have been deemed attractive, there is a real move towards the revitalization of names once deemed dated. I loved my grandmother but always thought her name - Mavis - was objectively ugly. Now it's on the rise. I'm not sure that those two moves are equitable in distribution, but those trends are operating next to one another.
It does seem incongruous that Mavis and Oaklynn are both mid-tier popular names in the world today, because they do seem to represent such different conceptions of names. But I think that incongruity has existed for a long time.
I'd also just say that there are some "classic" names that I view as hideous as t i do, say, Saylor. You're never going to catch me mourning for days when little girls were named Blanche or Beulah.
put a smile on your face - make the world a better place (:
This message was edited 5/24/2025, 9:16 PM
