Policy proposal: Questions about names and the process of deriving names are off-topic

Question

I visited What calendar can be used for Venus, Mercury and moons of Jupiter and Saturn? and realized that a policy of the Stack had been left off A Concise List of "The Rules": the policy concerning names (developing calendars requires naming days, months, holidays, etc.). But when I did a quick search for a relevant Meta post, I couldn't find one (which might be because I can't think of a search term that doesn't return hundreds of irrelevant questions all containing the word "name"). So, to establish a formal policy...

Proposal: Questions about names, naming things, and the process of naming things, are off-topic.

Before you jump to an answer with an understandably brilliant justification for why we should allow questions about names or that involve names, please be aware that there are absolutely years worth of closed questions holding back that argument. It's not that we don't want to hear it — but even ignoring the reasons why those questions were closed, there's a LOT of inertia to overcome.

The relevant basic rule is that this Stack is about building worlds, not telling stories — and the fundamental problem with names is that no matter what grammar rule they follow, they're adjectives. Please don't misunderstand what I mean, every Proper Noun on the planet is (for the sake of my argument) just an adjective: a word that describes or identifies something. And an adjective can be anything for any reason. Here's the problem, there's not a rule of a world independent of every story on that world that can be used to justify a name, because a name is an aesthetic... window dressing.

Even identifying a process whereby names could be derived is storybuilding... although I could be convinced otherwise about this. I once answered I need names for 16 months (question was closed) by describing a process to derive names. But as I go back and look at what I did, I do not believe the process can be entirely independent of the story. We're back to the same problem: until sapient creatures walk on that fictional world, look up at the stars, and say "Orack EEEK! blalaba dOOOckala cho!" there's simply no process that can be used to determine a calendar. The amount of information the OP would need to provide to create such a process would result in the calendar itself.

Who was it that said "The only way to simulate an infinitely complex system is with that system itself"?

So, just so we can point to a single Meta post that establishes the policy, and in support of years worth of closed questions, I propose this policy.

Answer 1

Three Points to Consider!

First, invented languages are actually, and in fact prominently on topic here in Worldbuilding! What Topics can I ask about here lists languages as a valid topic.

I suspect this was probably written before the invented languages forum got going. I have no problem with exporting all language invention questions to the other forum and no problem with inviting language related querents to ask their questions over there.

I just wanted to point out the glaring deficiency in the argument for this particular Policy before things get too far along! For this argument to make sense, someone should edit the help desk to reflect this Policy. Or perhaps, if needed, create a new Policy on Invented Languages query.

JBH has addressed this issue: First, the first point. I apologize because you're right that languages are listed in the help center. I also agree that its inclusion was certainly before Constructed Languages existed. So your point is well taken... but it's also irrelevant as we're really only focusing on a formal policy for "what's the best name for X?" questions. I admitted that I could be convinced otherwise about the process of naming and you've done a great job of doing that. focusing on rules should avoid the basic rule from the tour that Qs shouldn't seek opinions, but facts.

Second, I don't wholly disagree that questions that ask for names or for opinions about names or for advice on names should be considered off-topic here. While I don't see them as "story based" per se, I can certainly see how naming questions would turn into opinionfests, like the recent name my political system query. While I don't often VTC opinion based queries simply because some level of opinion generation is unavoidable in this forum, I did vote to close this one because it's obvious that the respondents aren't even close to consensus and I think that may be because the question wasn't well worded.

But I digress.

My point of disagreement with this Policy focuses on only one of the subparts, namely the lumping of the concept of naming in and of itself with concept of processes of naming.

My argument is that the process of naming a thing is essentially no different than the process of devising a thing. Both are processes of worldbuilding, and thus both valid. Their validity stems from the fact that the thing and the name are both artifacts of the world: matters of culture made by the people of that culture.

Conclusion: So I would agree with you that "What Do I Name This" kinds of questions are off topic. I would further agree that queries on pure advice, aesthetics, opinion seeking or euphonism -- basically cellardoorism -- are also off topic.

However, I disagree that process of naming queries ought to be considered off topic. An example of this kind of question might be:

Two cultures live side by side, A has access to trade routes with E, a distant & technologically advanced society, while B lives in a remote region and lacks contacts with any other culture apart from A, the people and culture of which B highly esteem. The people of cultures A & E are syringeal speakers (like birds) while the people of culture B are laryngeal speakers (like humans). Speakers of A can relatively easily pronounce the bimodal(two simultaneous vocalisms) language of E as well as the monomodal language of B; however the speakers of B, while they can understand the language of A, can not pronounce the bimodal syllables of A.

For reasons unimportant to the query, I want the speakers of B's language to borrow words from A's language. How can I reach a compromise between the two vocal systems such that a trade good from E, called {``srêê||,r~~~}{|-e|}{|`wi|} by the people of A, can be traded to the people of B who will give it a name recognisable to the traders from A. I'd like to preserve the overall structure of A's wordform, so answers like "well, they'll just give it their own name, so do whatever you want to do" are not admissible.

The notation of A's language: for purposes of this query, syllabic units that are divided by pipes denote a different vocalism emanating from left and right syrinx simultaneously; syllabic units enclosed within the double pipe denote both syringes are producing the same vocalism.

---

A third point to consider: Something else to think about re The name of something is always independent of the world's rules because any name can be used. Why one name is better than another is storybuilding because it only matters to characters in the story (not the world or any of its rules), and characters are off-topic per the help center.

Consider a world where semiotics, sound-symbolism and substantive onomotopoetics are operative rules of the place. I think it’s AlexP who’s fond of saying that words are not magic, but he is incorrect. Quite wrong indeed. In point of fact, here in Worldbuilding, words are not merely magic. Here, words not only create & define reality, but they also signal and represent the reality of the other world here within the real world.

In such a world as I propose for consideration, the very sound of a word relates to the form, composition and name of a thing. I mentioned cellardoorism as a concept earlier: the natural extension is phonaesthetic geopoetry. This is where the name of a thing is neither divorced from the rules or reality of the world, nor must it be made from a random opinion. This is not a case of any word will do, but rather the choice & crafting of word must follow reasonably logical rules, rational assumptions and must flow from the innate aesthesis of the world itself.

We do this in English a little bit by nature! If I said to you the sound sssssssss, I would probably lodge in your imagination images of sssslithery ssssnakessss and ssssneaky ssssspidersssessss, ssscorpionssss sssslinking in the darknesssss and ssslipery ssssputum and sssslime. What for us is a happy coincidence of a particular sound, [s:] and a particular set of concepts, chilly, dark, dank places filled with creepy crawly horrors is but the shallowest manifestation of this part of geopoetics.

I'll mention here that this can be a big stumbling block for a worldbuilder. I'd argue that a young worldbuilder or a beginner is more likely to have problems that could be solved by the mere application of opinion. Naming problems are often resolvable through individual or group brainstorming. Because "any name can be used".

And I certainly concur that WB is not for group brainstorming!

But as an example, this very issue has been a problem of worldbuilding for me. Over the last 30 to 40 years or so, I still have not hit upon the name for the race of people that more or less fulfill the role of Orc. The name of a whole race of people, as well as the constituent ethnoi, should fit. Any name can't be used, simply because they are not throw-away tidbits of background. In my opinion a well crafted world comprises not only objects, but also names. And the magic of words is that the name in a sense creates the object. If I've put the effort into naming an inconsequential a creature as the inverse earthworm, which are called hrratht.teth by those who have come across their deep telluric migrations, how much more consideration the name of "Orcs" deserves!

Answer 2

1. Names are nouns, not adjectives.

2. In the most general acception, adjectives are one kind of modifiers which can be applied to nouns. (Articles and numerals are other kinds of modifiers; and the English language is notorious for allowing "noun piles", chains of nouns modifying each other apparently without limit, for example, "air bag malfunction safety recall follow-up notice".)

3. While in rare situation a proper name can function as a modifier (for example "and then the cat Macavity was observed to be not there"), they most usually stand alone. Since they most usually stand alone and do not modify another noun, they are not adjectives.

4. Sorry, but I was triggered. A policy is supposed to be a respectable document. How can anybody respect a policy when it disrespects the very words that it uses?

5. I fully agree that asking for names of characters, of things, of creatures, of classes of things or creatures, and so on should be considered off topic. No other justification is necessary other than this being a fundamental creative function of the author.

6. But asking for a process of creating names of characters, of things, of creatures, of classes of things or creatures, and so on should be considered on topic, because the methods of creating names are intrinsically part of the culture; being part of the culture, they are very much part of the world to be built.

For example.

Let's consider personal names, the names of people; or, of course, the names of characters in the world to be built.

In most Indo-European languages, a personal name is made from a short nominal phrase, usually with two components; for example, Aga-memnon "Very Steadfast", Alex-andros "Defender of Men", Andro-meda "Ruler of Men", Theo-doros "Gift of God"; Bog-dan "id.", Bori-slav "Glory of War", Vladi-mir "Ruler of the World", Vladi-slav "Glorious Ruler"; Æthel-wulf (> Adolf) "Noble Wolf", Rīka-harduz (> Richard) "Brave King", Ed-mund "Protector of Wealth", Macht-hilde (> Matilda) "Strength in Combat", Wil-fred "Willing Peace".

Inventing such a general rule for a culture is pretty obviously part of world building, isn't it?

But wait, there's more.

In the classical world, where such two-component meaningful names were the rule for the Greeks, and for the Gauls, and for the Germans, one culture stood out: the Romans. They did not use such names, at least not for free-born citizens. I won't bore you with what they used, but the point is that varying the process for one of the cultures in the world-in-building is also part of the world building.

But wait, there's more.

The classical world is dead, and on its ruins rose the modern world. And in the modern world we use meaningless names, either badly mangled imported foreign names or badly mangled old autochtonous names; in stark contrast with the antiquity, where, with the exception of the exceptional Romans, meaningful names were the norm. Names such as Alexander, Anna, John, Daniel, Martin, Mary and so on are meaningless in English; or even Alfred, Matilda, Richard and Robert. Coming up with such a cunning development is part of the world building process, isn't it?

Answer 3

I think it's reasonable to say that naming questions, where no answer is more valid than any other, as being opinion based and therefore off-topic.

However, I think it's also reasonable to distinguish between simple naming and categorization within an established field of study. Were the Worldbuilding SE to be asked, in an alternate universe where it did not exist, whether a platypus is a mammal or a bird/reptile, our alternate selves would be guided by the the same knowledge, principles, and precedents that biologists were when they chose to categorize it as a mammal to build credible arguments for the correctness of the answers we present. Similarly, when asked to categorize an unusual type of governance (the question that prompted this meta question) or an unusual type of nation-state (a recent question that was closed on the same grounds and successfully re-opened), we are able to draw historical examples and precedents and the bodies of knowledge for political science, international law, and so forth to both justify our own answers and judge the plausibility of other answers provided. Given this clear distinction, dismissing such questions as "What do I name this?" is in error since they are not primarily opinion based and the general policy on naming questions should not apply to categorization within a field of study.