New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Adolph (Lucifer Part 3!)
Is Adolph usable?
Meaning, if you heard of someone who called their son it, would you suspect that they're some kind of neo-Nazi?
(This question is just for fun, by the way. I'm not actually considering Adolph for a child.)
Meaning, if you heard of someone who called their son it, would you suspect that they're some kind of neo-Nazi?
(This question is just for fun, by the way. I'm not actually considering Adolph for a child.)
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Absolutely unusable and yes, I would be quite suspicious about the Neo-Nazi thing.
1
No, Adolph is NOT usable. Absolutely not. And yes, I would think "what are you, some kind of Nazi!?" if I heard that someone had named his/her child this.
1
I think it's usable. I've done a lot of genealogy research and Adolph and Adolf were very common in the late 1800's and I think it would have made a comeback like other names from that era if it hadn't been for Hitler.
In a way I don't think Adolph/Adolf is comparable to Lucifer. Lucifer has never been widely used as a given name. It has always been the name that represents the dark side. Adolf was a perfectly normally name until Hitler ruined it. I believe Adolph/Adolf can be usable again if people start see it as only a name. But I guess you need to really love Adolph and be brave enough to use it. I don't think I could use it as a first name but definitely as a middle name.
So yes, Adolph is usable in my opinion but I think I would wonder, if I ever met a little Adolph, if his parents were into Hitler. But that would only happen with the first couple of Adolphs. Once you get used to it, it won't be a big deal.
I think, in theory, that Adolph/Adolf is a nice name and it has a nice meaning. It's about time we reclaim Adolph.
In a way I don't think Adolph/Adolf is comparable to Lucifer. Lucifer has never been widely used as a given name. It has always been the name that represents the dark side. Adolf was a perfectly normally name until Hitler ruined it. I believe Adolph/Adolf can be usable again if people start see it as only a name. But I guess you need to really love Adolph and be brave enough to use it. I don't think I could use it as a first name but definitely as a middle name.
So yes, Adolph is usable in my opinion but I think I would wonder, if I ever met a little Adolph, if his parents were into Hitler. But that would only happen with the first couple of Adolphs. Once you get used to it, it won't be a big deal.
I think, in theory, that Adolph/Adolf is a nice name and it has a nice meaning. It's about time we reclaim Adolph.
2
no and yes
1
I would immediately think Nazi. Family name or not, there is no good reason to use the name Adolph or Adolf. Nobody can honestly say that the name doesn't immediately make them think of Hitler and the horrible atrocities he committed. Why on Earth would someone burden a child with such a cursed name? Lucifer is mythological and is inaccurately associated with the bible. Adolf is an actual part of history.
1
Adolf is indeed an actual part of history, part of one of the blackest pages of history. There is no question about that.
However, you seem to forget that throughout history, Adolf and Adolph have also been borne by nobler and more benign persons than Hitler. People who can be considered as good when compared to Hitler, people who are part of some of the brighter pages of history. Some of them are not simply good, but even holy: there is one saint, a martyr, named Adolf (namely St. Adolf of Osnabrück), while there are two other saints named Adolphus. Other examples of better bearers are the Swedish kings Gustaf II Adolf (1594–1632), Gustaf IV Adolf (1778–1837) and Gustaf VI Adolf (1882–1973), and... Adolph Marx (1888–1961; yes, one of the Marx brothers!).
But for some reason, people forget about the good and only remember the bad, focusing on solely the negative which does not fairly represent the name. Don't people always say that positive is stronger than negative, good is stronger than evil? Then why do we let the evil (in this case, an evil bearer) rule our judgement of a name, rather than the good (in this case, numerous good bearers)? The mere fact that several holy persons bore this name should obliterate the stain that just one evil person made on the name, but we don't allow that to happen. Apparently then, good is not strong enough to obliterate the stain of evil. Kind of hypocritical, as people don't do or don't really believe what they preach then. And because of this, people kind of let evil win in this way. I mean, they allow something that is, by itself, objective and innocent (in this case, a name) to be tainted by evil and to be locked away for good, not recognizing the good parts and not giving it a chance to continue the good it has. This is how people let Hitler win, they give him more attention or "honour" than he deserves by banning this name or putting it into exile... they still let themselves be influenced by him in this way, while he should never have any influence whatsoever on people.
However, you seem to forget that throughout history, Adolf and Adolph have also been borne by nobler and more benign persons than Hitler. People who can be considered as good when compared to Hitler, people who are part of some of the brighter pages of history. Some of them are not simply good, but even holy: there is one saint, a martyr, named Adolf (namely St. Adolf of Osnabrück), while there are two other saints named Adolphus. Other examples of better bearers are the Swedish kings Gustaf II Adolf (1594–1632), Gustaf IV Adolf (1778–1837) and Gustaf VI Adolf (1882–1973), and... Adolph Marx (1888–1961; yes, one of the Marx brothers!).
But for some reason, people forget about the good and only remember the bad, focusing on solely the negative which does not fairly represent the name. Don't people always say that positive is stronger than negative, good is stronger than evil? Then why do we let the evil (in this case, an evil bearer) rule our judgement of a name, rather than the good (in this case, numerous good bearers)? The mere fact that several holy persons bore this name should obliterate the stain that just one evil person made on the name, but we don't allow that to happen. Apparently then, good is not strong enough to obliterate the stain of evil. Kind of hypocritical, as people don't do or don't really believe what they preach then. And because of this, people kind of let evil win in this way. I mean, they allow something that is, by itself, objective and innocent (in this case, a name) to be tainted by evil and to be locked away for good, not recognizing the good parts and not giving it a chance to continue the good it has. This is how people let Hitler win, they give him more attention or "honour" than he deserves by banning this name or putting it into exile... they still let themselves be influenced by him in this way, while he should never have any influence whatsoever on people.
2
It's usable, but it's best suited as a middle name. Sure, you can use it as a first name as well, but then in a manner that it would only be his first name on his birth certificate... while you always call him something else in daily life, like Adi or Dolph (which makes me think of actor Dolph Lundgren, by the way).
Also, personally I prefer the spelling Adolf, as that is simpler and seems more down to earth as well. The name is actually on my middle names list, since it's a family name. I would make sure that Adolf wouldn't draw too much attention as a middle name, though, since I plan on using more than one middle name (as is the custom in my neck of the woods). Adolf will then probably be the last middle name in the full name, so then the name shouldn't jump out too much or make people wonder about things. Being careful and subtle with this name is important, I think.
Also, personally I prefer the spelling Adolf, as that is simpler and seems more down to earth as well. The name is actually on my middle names list, since it's a family name. I would make sure that Adolf wouldn't draw too much attention as a middle name, though, since I plan on using more than one middle name (as is the custom in my neck of the woods). Adolf will then probably be the last middle name in the full name, so then the name shouldn't jump out too much or make people wonder about things. Being careful and subtle with this name is important, I think.
1
Yes, I would suspect they were some kind of neo-Nazi. The Holocaust is still too fresh to name a kid Adolph without raising eyebrows. Maybe one day it will become a usable name again, but that day isn't here yet.
Too bad Hitler couldn't be named Bill, Bob, or Jack. I mean, Josef is still plenty usable, ya know?
Too bad Hitler couldn't be named Bill, Bob, or Jack. I mean, Josef is still plenty usable, ya know?
1
I wouldn't think someone who used it was a neo-Nazi, but if I'm honest, I would wonder what they were thinking!
For me, it's on the list of permanent 'never can be used again' names, because of Hitler.
For me, it's on the list of permanent 'never can be used again' names, because of Hitler.
1
Well, I was wondering about the name Adolph myself last week. I think that if it were to be used today it would have to be as a mn. I think that the bubbling undercurrent of Neo-nazism that exists in places probably hinders the viability of Adolph/f as a fn.
I believe that Adolph/f has gained even more infamy as a name because it was distinctive to begin with. People haven't topped calling their children Josef after Mengele for instance; ofcourse, Mengele was working with Hitler, so perhaps my point isn't really a point but it goes without saying that both men were responsible for horrific things.
I believe that Adolph/f has gained even more infamy as a name because it was distinctive to begin with. People haven't topped calling their children Josef after Mengele for instance; ofcourse, Mengele was working with Hitler, so perhaps my point isn't really a point but it goes without saying that both men were responsible for horrific things.
1
Usuable? Perhaps as a middle name, especially if it runs in the family. I can be objective enough to allow that and a middle name isn't often used or announced. ETA: Just occurred to me that Adolphus would be more comfortable.
As a first name, I would not automatically assume the parents were neo-Nazi, but I'd wonder. My question would be, "Is Adolph a family name for you?". If not, I'd assume they, at the very least, enjoy being intentionally controversial/confrontational/aggressive, etc., probably also love the names Cain and Lucifer *because* of their dark histories/controversy and, sadly, couldn't bring themselves to overlook their own preferences in favor of their son, leaving him saddled with a name which will immediately bring "evil" to the mind of nearly everyone he ever meets in his life. This would cause me, and call me prejudiced on the matter if you will, to feel I should not like to be friends with those people; I couldn't trust their judgment.
ETA: Wanted to add that merely hearing a name would not give an indication as to spelling and, as was mentioned, if Hitler's spelling was used I'd definitely assume "Nazi".
As a first name, I would not automatically assume the parents were neo-Nazi, but I'd wonder. My question would be, "Is Adolph a family name for you?". If not, I'd assume they, at the very least, enjoy being intentionally controversial/confrontational/aggressive, etc., probably also love the names Cain and Lucifer *because* of their dark histories/controversy and, sadly, couldn't bring themselves to overlook their own preferences in favor of their son, leaving him saddled with a name which will immediately bring "evil" to the mind of nearly everyone he ever meets in his life. This would cause me, and call me prejudiced on the matter if you will, to feel I should not like to be friends with those people; I couldn't trust their judgment.
ETA: Wanted to add that merely hearing a name would not give an indication as to spelling and, as was mentioned, if Hitler's spelling was used I'd definitely assume "Nazi".
This message was edited 2/11/2013, 12:17 PM
1
I know an Adolph. No wait, I know two even. One is in his 50s and one in his 60s. I wouldn't personally suspect the parents are neo-Nazis, but I do think Adolph/Adolf are better left untouched.
1
I'm probably not in the majority, but if I saw that someone had named their child Adolph I wouldn't suspect them of being a neo-Nazi. You see, neo-Nazis would most definitely use the spelling Adolf to honor their man-god. So, I'd just assume the parents were wanting to be controversial or maybe honor some awesome grandparent.
But usable? Probably not unless someone is willing to take the chance of a public trial for child abuse and maybe a bit of arson from less sympathetic parties.
But usable? Probably not unless someone is willing to take the chance of a public trial for child abuse and maybe a bit of arson from less sympathetic parties.
This message was edited 2/11/2013, 11:50 AM
1