…and why, for that matter, do we have specific names that we deem “for pets only”?
“Rover”, “Fluffy”, “Bingo”, etc all seem to have been given to pets only, as far as I know.
I’m sure that one of us knows someone who probably has a “pet only” type of name.
So, how did we get to have names that seem to be more suited for pets only?
Uhm, I believe that “Fido” or something like it, is Latin for “loyal.” Same root as the word “fidelity,” I think.
“Fluffy” is an essentially adjective. Fluffy fur an’ all.
“Rover,” I guess, would be a dog that roves.
“Bingo” I don’t know.
My WAG is that people often see animals not as complex creatures that deserve a real “human” name, but as wiggly little critters that only need an adjective to describe thier one-dimensional personality. Fluffy, Rover, Fido, Scruffy, Bandit, Whiskers, Spot, etc.
[sub]
(Er, something like that. I’m sick, and am not exceptionally coherent at the moment.)
[/sub]
I’ve never much liked it when owners give “people” names to their pets.
Like you hear some people talking about how Jerry had a lot to eat last night, or Jerry’s dying of cancer, or Jerry’s being a big pain in the ass or whatever…then you join the conversation only to find out that Jerry is their cat.
I know a human “Fido”. I think it’s a nickname, short for Fidel or something.
Maybe the question should be “Why don’t people name their kids Fluffy?”
Fluffy & Fido can’t be used as real names because then there wouldn’t be any good porn star names.
-Midnight Stoner.
I am particularly fond of pets with human names. The pets I have known and liked the best in my life have all had human names.
They were, just to name a few: Frank, George, Russell Henry, Randall, Levi, Earl and Tobias.
I think the name you choose indicates the type of relationship you have with your pet. A human name shows that you think of your pet as a friend. “Frank” or “Randall” is your buddy - - a companion. “Caramel” or “Mittens” is something you own - - like a living stuffed animal.
I always liked how Scout called her father “Atticus” in “To Kill a Mockingbird”. Calling him by his first name is so much more personal than just calling him “dad”. There are a million dads in the world, but only one “Atticus”. I think it indicates a deeper relationship between Scout and Atticus than most fathers and daughters share. Same with human names for your pets.
You’re welcome to your opinion, of course, but I disagree. There are a million Trumans in the world, there are billions of fathers in the world, but I only had one daddy, and I miss him.
(Sorry for contributing to the hijack. )
For pets, though, I’m more inclined to agree with you. My own cat was named after a human. Now I’m trying to think of all my friends and their pets to see if a pattern emerges.
RR
Funny coincidence, it was just mentioned this morning on the CBC that Lincoln had a dog named Fido. He apparently had to leave it behind when he moved to the Whitehouse. The author being interviewed seemed to think that accounted for starting its popularity as a dog’s name. I unfortunatly don’t have the resources to check dog name stats before and after Lincoln’s Fido.
Oh, and lest we forget, nobody really names their dog “Fido”. Seriously, how many dogs have you seen that were actually named this?
Good point. Although Larry Norman named his recording company Phydeaux Records.
RR
I read once that Rover wasn’t a popular name for dogs until it was used for a famous film dog.
We have always registered our purebred springers with names in the form “Miss Firstname Lastname” – Miss Emily Kimberly, Miss Dorothy Michaels, Miss Phyllis Potter. It started with Emily, named after a character in Tootsie, and just sort of evolved. We liked the contradiction of giving a “proper” feminine-sounding name to a creature that was likely to be doing disgusting things: “Emily, stop licking yourself!” “Emily, drop that dead rat!” And so on. Plus we often use the “titles” when we talk to them: Mr. Buster, Miss Scout (who would be “Miss Jean Louise Finch” if she had papers).
And we often refer (with a large grain of facetiousness, admittedly) to our dogs as “people.” They have personalities; why can’t we think of them as persons?
Due to my current Buffy obsession all my cats have been named after characters in the show.
We currently have Kendra and Dawn.
Dawns kittens were called - Buffy, Xander and Willow.
I’ve just realised how sad I am.
Mental note to self: Get a Life!
The current dog’s name is “Duchess.”
Calling her “Fido” would just sound silly…
In a Jane Goodall style repetition, all of our pets in recent years have had M names. Milton was the first, a cat. Then there’s Max, the dog, an absurd number of other cats (I named one Marvin) and the hamster Marigold.
What I’m getting at is that about half have human names, and half pet names (Meowser, aka Me, Snowball, etc).
To adress the OP, I think some names became pet-only names because a lot of pets got named that. The same reason that there aren’t people with first names starting with the letter R. in some of Asimov’s stories, because robots’ names started with R.
Ah! The word you’re looking for is “honorific”: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Your Lorship, and Your Excellency are all honorifics.
You mean Bingo was the name of the dog?
Speaking as someone who once had a dog named Princess Theodora Magda Kutya duPage, (called Teddy) I’ve always in favor of “people” names for pets. Fido, Rover, Spot, they just didn’t fit the bill. My current dog, however, is Spunky. In his case, the name fit.
I do turn my nose up at people who give their pets really awful names like Bobo or Stinky. That’s just cruel.
I have to mention our dear departed family friend named Fido. He was a human being, originally from Mexico, where Fidel (meaning “loyal”) is not an uncommon name.
I’m sorry, how is it cruel to name your pet Bobo or Stinky