Text 17736, 180 rader
Skriven 2005-12-04 13:19:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 17589 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Name-Calling
====================
 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

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

My girl friend's full name is Rosa Eleonora Snel. The "Eleonora" is ommited
except on very formal occasions.

 > ... I presumed "van der" would be used similarly.

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

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

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

 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,

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.

Over here and in Germany it no longer has meaning either in most 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 commision 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 immediatly start using the name "Michiel
 > van der Vlist" as my own, without even a need to "register" it.

But why on earth would you do that?

 > Also there would be no legal problems --

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

 >> 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.

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

I never hear people being addressed by their last name only in the movies or on
TV...

 > Why *should* I??  That's my name and it's spelled
 > correctly so do as you wish.

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

 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 ...

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

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

 >> If I had intended an insult it would have been obvious.

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

 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 ...

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

 >> 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* ...

An excuse presented with the wrapper of a reason, is still an 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"???

No. Try again.

 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!

So how about Poland? Did it win or lose?

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)