In fact, plenty of more modern names would be considered more legitimate than some of the names that were used before 1900. Wrestling, Has-Descendents and Anger would probably raise some eyebrows on the playground.
It depends on the name. But no, I don't think names created after 1900 aren't legitimate. thesaurus is right. Abstinence, Faint-Not, Sin-Deny, Small-Hope, Agony, Search-The-Scriptures and ZAPHNAPHPAANEAH.... were used before 1900. . And yet I'd prefer to call DD Arwen or Aragorn
Well, I consider myself a name nerd in that it's a subject I have been obsessed with for years and have to remind myself not to bore other people with. But I don't feel that makes me an authority!
Would love a link to the forums you refer to as I'd like a peek at the type of bollocks they're talking.
In my view all names are legit, and all names are "invented" at some point, so what does it matter how long ago that happened? There are a lot of very pretty names which only came into being in the last 100 years or less, but they are no less acceptable than the older ones, as we see from 1horatio's post (no relation!)
hi I read about a modern Australian baby-toddler named Leonie that died which prompted my thread. Of course it's perfectly possible for a modern parent to like an "old" or "dated" name and still use it.. what is dated to one person is fresh to another.
The whole concept of "tryndee" is not objective fact and is merely a way for naming snobs to de-legitimise anything that is too "common" for their worldview.
It's kind of like "Light" in the Doctor Who story Ghost Light who couldn't cope with the fact that Earth was constantly changing and evolving.
Sorry, i mean reading about the modern Australian baby called Leonie prompted my Leonie and Kylie thread.
"tryndee" is just an easy way to de-legitmise what a self appointed name group does not like. It's also bullshit in that everything is changing and evolving... by insisting on the ways of the past, you write yourself out of a place in the future.