That's why we call him "LC" Tuesday, September 13, 2005

I originally entitled this post "What's in a Name?", but feared persecution by the Department of Cliche Prevention. However, since the Department of Cliche Prevention was deemed by President Chimp-Face to fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, I have no worries. They have their heads so far up their asses that they'd never notice.

I ran across this article while looking for a new desktop wallpaper for my work computer. I have had Chad Pennington on my desktop since last season, and after Sunday's debacle, I don't want to even look at him. So I went looking for something with LC on it, and found this post. It poses an interesting question: if someone wants their name to be spelled in a way that defies the conventional rules of spelling, are we then obligated to comply?

One example he cites is Jets receiver Laveranues Coles. He pronounces his first name "la-VER-nee-us", but that's certainly not how he spells it. The article's author argues that if one departs entirely from the conventions of English spelling, then authors are under no obligation to follow suit, because (I'm guessing) the clarity of the information being communicated is compromised. For example, when Prince was a symbol, was it wrong to address him in some other way? Do I now have to go create some graphic and insert it into my writing just to satisfy some wacko's idea of self-expression? Probably not. But I do think names are too personal to be anyone's business but their owner's, and if someone named "Bob" spells their name "Shoe", I say so be it. Some explanatory footnote should cover it if the reader is unfamiliar. Proper names have always crossed the boundaries of orthography and convention, and I see no reason to say that "Shoe" (Bob) is any less valid than, say, spelling "Jen" with two n's.