Text 17851, 237 rader
Skriven 2005-12-04 22:37:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST
Ärende: Name-Calling
====================
-=> Quoting Michiel Van Der Vlist to Frank Scheidt <=-

 MVDV>>> 2) Derived from the name of the father: Karlson (Son of Karl) Janson,
 MVDV>>> Jansen, (Son of Jan)

 MVDV>>> 3) Derived from a place: van der Vlist: from, or of, Vlist.
 >
 >> All well-known ... [sigh] ...

 MVDV>> Yet you did not know that the "van der" is an integral part of my
 MVDV>> surname....
 
 > There are people here named, for example, John William James
 > Smith.  He would typically go by "John Smith" leaving out the
 > William James

 MVDV> Same here. people who have more than one given name, "Middle mame" I
 MVDV> think is the term you use, usually only use the first given name
 MVDV> together with their family name in day to day use.

 MVDV> My girl friend's full name is Rosa Eleonora Snel. The "Eleonora" is
 MVDV> ommited except on very formal occasions.
 
 > ... I presumed "van der" would be used similarly.

 MVDV> And that is were you went wrong. The "van der" part is NOT the same as
 MVDV> the "william James" in your example.


 MVDV> The "William James" in your example is a result of the choice of the
 MVDV> parents. It is part of the set of given names. The "Smith" OTOH, is not
 MVDV> a result of the choice of the parents, the "Smith" is inherited.

 MVDV> My family name is "van der Vlist". It is not a result of the choice of
 MVDV> my parents. It is inhereted. Family names with "van", "van de" or "van
 MVDV> der" are  always used in full.

OK, your customs are different than ours.  That's obvious ...

 MVDV>>> We have a Joe Delahaye here. That derives from "de la Haye" or "from
 MVDV>>> The Hague". I believe "Vanderbilt" is a well known name in the US. The
 >
 >> In the U.S. we have largely given up such affectations.

 MVDV>> "affectations"? Now what is that supposed to mean? It is simply part
 MVDV>> of my name, I didn't choose it, I just got it.
 >
 > If a person here was named "von Bruchstein", for example, he'd
 > often ignor the "von" part,

 MVDV> Over here that is NEVER done.
 
 > mainly because it would have no meaning here while it *did* mean
 > something to people in Germany when he was living there.

 MVDV> Over here and in Germany it no longer has meaning either in most
 MVDV> cases. Yet the prefixes remain.
 
 >> The only people who use such titles are people

 MVDV>> It is not a title and save for going through an official name change
 MVDV>> procedure = which is expensive and a lot of hassle - I do not have the
 MVDV>> choice of using it or not. It is the name under which I am known in
 MVDV>> this country. I had no say in the matter.
 
 > Here, as long as it's not being used in the commission of some
 > crime, one can change his name without even applying for a
 > "license".  It's usually not done because it can become too
 > complicated for the person changing his name, depending upon
 > how many years of history he has behind him.
 
 > *I*, for example, could immediately start using the name "Michiel
 > van der Vlist" as my own, without even a need to "register" it.

 MVDV> But why on earth would you do that?

I *wouldn't* but you should recall this is a nation of immigrants 
-- citizens originally from all over the world.  Usually they 
want to "fit in".  One way of doing that is by having a name 
which sounds more "American" than, say,  "Wrwyskinski".  I 
personally know a man whose family name is actually "Prohaska".   
He changed his last name to "Brooks" which is easier to spell and 
to pronounce.  He has a brother with the original name.

That's usually the reason people change their names here.  How 
would an immigrant named "Michiel Van Der Vlist" likely 
"Anglicize" *that* name here?  Possibly "Michael List", for 
example.  And as a *new* immigrant that would pose no special 
problem for he'd not have a long history of activities here using 
his original name.

 > Also there would be no legal problems --

 MVDV> I am unsure about the details here. It is possible to legally change
 MVDV> one's name, but it is a lot of hassle and expensive and it is rare. As
 MVDV> for informal use of an alias, that too is rare. It could lead to
 MVDV> problems as it can easely lead to a suspicion of abuse. I *think* it is
 MVDV> ok to give a false name when signing into a hotel. But you better make
 MVDV> *very* sure you pay the bill before you leave or you may end up on the
 MVDV> wrong end of a charge of forgery with intent to avoid payment...
 
Here, too, changing one's name with the intent to use the name in 
some illegal activity would cause additional trouble with the 
law.

 >> European customs are different than American customs. That's
 >> all you're saying.  Using last names as a form of address is
 >> common here.  It has no special significance.

 MVDV>> Really?

 MVDV>> So you don't mind at all that I started this reply to you with a
 MVDV>> "Hello Scheidt" at the top?
 
 > Of course not.

 MVDV> Interesting. Are you sure it is not just you that doesn't mind but
 MVDV> that it is representative for the US as a whole.

I presume it's widespread for I know a number of people who are 
addressed routinely by their last name.  Even in *my* case among 
the many neighbors I knew as a child there was one family in which 
the people addressed me *always* using my last name only -- and they 
were *friends*.  That usage means nothing.  Of course there might 
be parts of the U.S. where it *isn't* done, but, in general, I 
think it's pretty common.

MVDV> I never hear people being addressed by their last name only in the
 MVDV> movies or on TV...
 
 > Why *should* I??  That's my name and it's spelled
 > correctly so do as you wish.

 MVDV> In my culture it definitely is insulting. Not a "dualling to the
 MVDV> death" insult, but an insult nevertheless.

So if someone comes here from Europe wanting to insult me for 
some reason, then addresses me by my last name he'd be mighty 
disappointed ... heh heh heh ...

 MVDV>>> OTOH, it is also considered mildly insulting here to adress
 MVDV>>> someone as "Mr." in a group if the group's customs and mores
 MVDV>>> are that all members are on a first name basis.
 
 >> I think American speech is a bit more subtle than is European
 >> speech WRT "Mr."

MVDV>> Your ignorence with respect to European customs is showing again...
 
 > OK ... after all, I'm no *expert* on European customs ...

 MVDV> There are differences, I certainly would not say American speech is
 MVDV> *more* subtle.

 MVDV> Using "Mr" can be a very subtle way to emphesisze an aversion or
 MVDV> launch an insult. It is subtle because depending on context and
 MVDV> circumstances, the use of "mr" can also be a sign of respect.

That technique is used here also ...
 
 >> If I had intended an insult it would have been obvious.

 MVDV> Then I can not but conclude that American is speech is less subtle
 MVDV> than European. European speech hace many ways of launching unobvious
 MVDV> insults. 

Don't be too certain we *haven't* such techniques ... heh heh heh 
...

 MVDV>> I am not so sure about that. I think you are smart enough
 MVDV>> to launch a /not so obvious/ insult....
 
 > Maybe you're just being very, very sensitive ...

 MVDV> FidoNet has trained me in the art of recognising insults too subtle to
 MVDV> be formally adressable by enforcers...
 
OK ...

 >> As should have been apparent I've avoided any insulting or
 >> flaming here though I'm pretty experienced in the use of both

 MVDV>> You have avoided *obvious* flaming or name calling, yes...
 
 >> ... heh heh heh ... I tend to do it only defensively ...

 MVDV>> In self defence. Yeah, that excuse...
 
 > It's not an "excuse"; it's a *reason* ...

 MVDV> An excuse presented with the wrapper of a reason, is still an excuse.

There's a difference in meaning between "reason" and "excuse" ...
 
 >>> Huh?  You say, and I quote:  "It also explains why so many
 >>> Americans believe the US won WWII."  That says you think the
 >>> US *lost* WWII.  Strange!

 MVDV>>> Only in your binary way of thinking.
 >
 >> Whatever *that* means ... [sigh] ...

 MVDV>> It means that you only think in black and white. For you their
 MVDV>> can only be two shaded, black and white. In reality their ares
 MVDV>> shades of grey.
 
 > So Germany only lost the war "somewhat"???

 MVDV> No. Try again.

Why "No"?  In many cases there *are* only two shades.  Examples, 
pregnancy, death, virginity, etc.

 MVDV>>> War is not a football game where there are just two parties
 MVDV>>> and where in the end there is always exactly one winner
 MVDV>>> and exactly one loser.
 
 >> WRT WWII one side won; one side lost.

 MVDV>> There is that binary thinking again....
 
 > Good for me!

 MVDV> So how about Poland? Did it win or lose?

The answer to that requires a specific date.  When Germany 
overran Poland, it lost.  When the Soviets "liberated" Poland, it 
lost again.  When Ronald Reagan's policies caused the collapse of 
the Soviet Union, Poland won.  Currently Poland is winning.  
However Poland has a long history of being conquered and 
"unconquered"  ...

... Environmentalism:  A green tree with red roots.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)