Naming Conventions
I had a chat with M., who was preturbed by a previous post’s failure to explicitly mention and thereby hint toward her natal celebration in just over a month’s time, about why I try not to use people’s names and personal details here. It is, of course, my attempt at being polite. I don’t want to use anyone’s name in such a way that it becomes part of the public record via what I write here, especially not with direct reference to personal details that might be embarrassing or where that person’s preference would be for non-disclosure. There’s an African admonishment, What if a snake hears you? such creatures being able thus to take advantage of knowing who you are, and snakes abound on the internet, as we all know, so reticence seems appropriate. Nevertheless, as at the beginning of this paragraph and throughout other posts, even immediately adjacent ones, references to others are necessary, they’re part of the story. I enjoy the practice of nicknames, A.’s being an example of the use of the apt coinage, B.’s exemplifying the use of initials in similar fashion. But most of the people reading this won’t ever know any of these people or would be confused, perhaps, by the diminutives or initials, so I’m left in a quandary. Shall I refer to George as “The Archivist,” which makes him sound like a supervillain’s henchman in a comic book? Would I be able to come home – ever – if I apply a nickname to my beloved spouse? (Perhaps “Beloved Spouse” is the nickname to use? I don’t think “Fifi” is going to cut it.) If A. and B. are both lawyers, can I call one “The Attorney” but not the other? Can I use “Opposing Counsel” for one without offense? It would, of course, be easier if everyone had ‘blogs, because then the onus of identification would reside with the referent, but alas, I must bear the burden of naming names alone. I shall ponder the question, but suggestions wouldn’t be unwelcome.