Nomenclature

       What’s in a name? Do you grow into it, or does it grow into you? What about your dog? I’ve always thought that naming pets offered the chance to get creative. Sure there are thousands of names to choose from, but for me the fact that you’re naming a pet has the added benefit of making fair game of ALL vocabulary. Verbs, nouns, prepositions and various other parts of speech come totally within the scope of possibility. What’s more, you’re not even limited to your own language! I love it!

That’s why it’s a little disappointing to me when I hear five people at the dog park calling for “Max” or “Bella”. Sure, it might fit, but where’s the creativity? Not only that, but why is it that so many people insist on giving their dogs what I’ll refer to as ‘people names’? Am I the only one that this bothers? I’ll let the more obscure choices slide (“Tiny” being short for Clementine is pretty cute)…and perhaps the famous figure/character references (Fezzik is a great name for a Bernese Mountain Dog, in my opinion)…and I suppose surnames are okay too (O’Malley, for example).  But it gets on my nerves a little that the “Top 10” of popular dogs names sounds like a kindergarten class roster.

 This might have something to do with the fact that so many people in our culture have opted to get dogs instead of have kids. That might also explain why we’re treating our dogs more and more like little, four-legged people these days. We take them to daycare, fill and refill their toy boxes, maybe even make them home-cooked meals, bathe them regularly and spritz them with doggie cologne, etc. I’m not knockin’ it…well, not all of it.

An article I read recently claims this trend has everything to do with it. According to Professor Leonard Ashley, an Onomastician (a.k.a. someone who studies names) it's inherent in human nature to assign names to things, and since our dogs have become more and more integrated as members of the family, we name them as such.
But maybe I’m reading too much into it. I have heard of a few basic and acceptable rationales for certain names and syllable preferences. For example, my Grandfather always insisted on short, single-syllable names that could be shouted with authority and heard in the field (he always had hunting dogs). My mom has always had a preference for names ending in an ‘eee’ sound. So, we’ve had to compromise on occasion. Her dog’s name is Madmartigan and she calls her ‘Maddie’ for short. Given her personality, however, Madmartigan is definitely the more appropriate choice. (But that’s only if you get the reference.)

I suppose when it comes down to it, I admittedly prefer the overly simplistic names to the ridiculous titles I’ve heard assigned to show dogs. “GCH Foxcliffe Hickory Wind” for example….Huh? This is the name of the Scottish Deerhound who won “Best In Show” at this year’s Westminster Dog Show.

I never understood where these names came from. I always thought they were just throwbacks, or some sort of reference to royal bloodlines, or lineage or something. They’re ridiculous, but I suppose they are creative (Perhaps I should be more careful what I wish for). Upon looking into it,  I discovered that these titles are generally meant to reference the breeder they came from. It’s a shameless promotion of sorts. Not so original when you look at it that way.  I think I was better off not knowing.

Then again, maybe it’s none of my business. Maybe your dog’s name is an inside joke, and it’s meant to be simple, yet esoteric. Maybe you named your Pug after an ugly relative. Maybe I’m not supposed to get it…but it still bugs me.