Language and Naming Conventions

An Icelandic girl has prevailed in court and will now be able to use her given name, the BBC reports.  Her name must be something ridiculous, right?  Perhaps, “Apple”?  Or “La—ah” (pronounced: “la-dash-ah).  Even better, the old classic “*&^”? 

Blaer Bjarkardottir (left), with mother, Bjork.

Believe it or not, the young lady has a perfectly unexciting name: “Blaer,” which in the Icelandic language means “light breeze.”  Unfortunately for Blaer, the name does not appear on the Icelandic government’s pre-approved database of given names.  Like the French language, Icelandic is carefully guarded and regulated by the government so as to preserve ancient grammar and pronunciation rules, and to protect the “integrity” of a language so close to what was spoken by the Vikings.  Certain names of foreign origin, which might be unisex, or which use symbols that aren’t part of the Icelandic alphabet are all excluded from the aforementioned database.  Once all is said and done, Icelandic parents are free to choose from a list containing around 1,800 names.

Fifteen years is a long time to go without a name.  The Icelandic court undoubtedly reached the right outcome, and for a number of reasons.  First and foremost, it seems far beyond the scope of any legitimate system of government to regulate naming conventions in such a strict manner as in Blaer’s case.  There might be some justification for limited enforcement of naming guidelines.  It would be rather difficult to have a spoken language should names consist merely of unpronounceable symbols.  And it is seems intuitively unfair for a child to have to suffer with a socially offensive name or, say, a name often attributed to the opposite gender.  At the same time, it isn’t immediately clear that the State should be the means of addressing these concerns.  Social pressure, for example, is amazingly capable of addressing these sorts of things.  In the past, the Church would refuse to baptize children who weren’t appropriately named.  And even without such pressure present today, most couples stick to traditional and popular names anyway.  The spontaneous and unplanned regulation of naming does happen, and deviance from the “norm” is infrequent.

A more important reason for resisting this sort of regulation is the effect it has on stifling the natural progression and development of culture, including language.  Words change meaning and social norms and expectations evolve.  Sometimes this is all for the better, and sometimes for the worse.  But to deny this obvious organicism is to ignore the reality and the naturalness of our very being and the modes by which we express that being.

Again, I can conceive of some instances where it might be justified for law to prevent a parent from naming their child something that isn’t really a name, at least as we presently understand it, e.g., “*&^.”  But it is a much harder case to argue for such intervention where a newborn baby’s name might be merely imprudent, offensive, or just plain stupid.  At the very least, the case of Blaer highlights the difficulty here, while also providing a first-hand example of the development of language and naming conventions.  A fascinating case!