Pet owners reflected in names of their pets
Pastor [David] Epps’ recent column (“Members of the Family,” The Citizen, Oct. 16, 2010) brought back tender memories that many of us who have reared several children and umpteen pets of all description, find easy to recall with fondness. Putting down a pet because of a health-related reason can never remove them from our thoughts and memories.
Without sounding too dogmatic I would like to advise new dog owners to spend a little time when choosing a name for their pet.
Through the years, canines have given us so much and asked for so little. We have volunteered them for military duty in the K-9 Corps; we have used them in conjunction with our police and fire departments; we have trained them to aid our blind, handicapped and elderly, yet many owners don’t take the time to give them the individuality that a proper name might provide.
A recent survey showed that nearly one-tenth of all female dogs are not even named, but are referred to as Lady, yet there was not a single case of a male dog being named Man. Very strange. This poses a question for semanticists to ponder. Does a child who goofs on the sex of a puppy called “Missy” create a “Mistery”?
Many name their dogs after colors. British royalty also scores exceptionally high on the list (King, Queenie, Prince, Duke, etc.) Could that be a two-way street? Wouldn’t it be neat if in England dogs were named Vice-President, Attorney General, or Secretary of the Interior?
Possibly pet owners shy away from original names for fear they will be judged by the names they assign their animals. I imagine that psychologists could write at length on how personalities of pet owners are reflected in the names they give their dogs.
They’d have an easy time with my son. His two dogs are named Blackjack and Vegas.
Peachtree City, Ga.