Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Twinkie Names (final)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 12:32:50

    Angharad wrote:

   *> Greetings all, from Angharad.  Lord, this thread on names!  I'm going
   *> to give this one shot, because I think maybe a nonherald who isn't an
   *> expert might have a better shot at communicating what I think is
   *> bothering Tadhg.

 Good luck ... it hasn't worked for me, so far....

   *> First, he's not objecting to translations.  Most people don't
   *> translate when registering names -- an Italian name might just as
   *> well be registered in Italian, for heaven's sake.  But a reasonable
   *> translation, reasonably documented, would I suspect be fine.  If you
   *> want to translate in ordinary use, I don't think Tadhg would mind.
   *> But it is worth knowing that word-by-word translations frequently
   *> generate nonsense.  It seems to me, for instance, that either
   *> "Gilberts" or "Gilbertson" or even "son of Gioberti" are reasonable
   *> translations for "di Gioberti", but that "of Gioberti" makes sense
   *> neither as Italian nor as English.

 (I hate to interrupt, since you're on a roll here, but "John of Gilbert"
 is quite arguably a period name form....)

   *> Second, when Tadhg says that compound epithets should "make sense", I
   *> think he means that they should make sense in the medieval context:
   *> be ways medievals put things together in names.  Every actual
   *> medieval epithet I've heard, including those cited against Tadhg, is
   *> very concrete.  The ones Tadhg objects to make sense (sometimes) as
   *> modern figures of speech, but not as medieval concrete compounds.

 Actually, this "argument" has two components: epithets that don't "make
 sense" *in a medieval context*, as you have so ably expounded, and
 epithets that don't "make sense" in any context (however much they may
 *appear* do so to the Cerebrally Challenged) such as "fence splitter",
 "strongfire", or "longeye".

    *> The problem he has with these names, I think, is that they give the
    *> strong impression to those who know much about medieval language use
    *> in general and naming in particular that nobody in period could have
    *> had them, and they give a _false_ impression to people who don't know
    *> anything about medieval names of what those names were like. To use
    *> an example close to -- Tadhg's -- home, "Red Vashti" may be a
    *> reasonable translation of a period name (certainly in Wales there was
    *> "Iolo Goch", which means "Red Iolo", or, if you prefer, "Iolo the
    *> Red"), but "Vashti of the Flaming Tresses" is not, unless, as Tadhg
    *> suggests, you set her hair on fire.... ;^/

 Yes! Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes!

   *>  (For those not in on the Ansteorran joke, Vashti is Tadhg's lady
   *> wife.)

 Well, wife anyway... [Just kidding, dear, just kidding...]

   *> The problem is the stress between those who want the fantasy-neatness
   *> associations of their chosen names and those who want to promote a
   *> genuinely medieval atmosphere which, for them, is ruined by people with
   *> names that would have inspired not respect or other fantasy-neatness
   *> associations, but confusion or unkind laughter in period.

 And genuine (but equally caloric) laughter in modern times. Those who
 choose funny-silly-fantasy names merely reinforce the inaccurate
 assumptions of those outside the SCA whose initial impression that we are
 either {a bunch of functionally juvenile RPGers} or {a group of certified
 loonies and perhaps Satanists} such activities do nothing to counter.
 Granted that the SCA falls short in many respects from being a serious
 substantial organization, nevertheless the potential is there, and many of
 us are of opinion that the tendencies to trivialize it ought to be
 resisted. This is one such area of resistance.

    *> If you claim that your honest-to-gosh name is something ludicrous,
    *> people must assume that either you are widely disliked and others
    *> hung it on you, or your parents are nasty.  -- Or admit, in the
    *> middle of their recreations, that this is not your name, it's your
    *> current modern jest.  Which again spoils the recreation for them,
    *> which is both why they care and what makes it any of their business.

 Oh, well said! Well said indeed!

    *> On the whole, it is polite to call people what they want to be
    *> called.  On the whole, it is polite not to force people at SCA
    *> events to acknowlege that there is nothing medieval about what we
    *> do.  These two points of courtesy frequently come into conflict: one
    *> instance occurs when people want to choose names that, to those who
    *> know much about medieval naming, are blatantly nonmedieval. It's
    *> blue jeans all over again, in a different guise.

 However much this may be a moral dilemma for some, my choice is quickly
 made. I refuse to acknowledge any obligation to be polite to people if
 "being polite" necessarily includes not mentioning it when they poop on
 our rug, and that is how I view what is happening here.

    *> In other words, I think that this thread as yet another
    *> manifestation of the eternal "authenticity-is-more-fun versus
    *> modern-fooling-around-is-more-fun" debate.  Also, I think it's time
    *> to let it go.

 *sigh* Another perceptive insight. Perhaps having clearly delineated the
 two positions and finding no common ground is as much as this present
 discussion can be expected to have accomplished. Finito.

    Tadhg, Hanaper


 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca