Okay, this is a completely light hearted (and I'd like to think amusing) paper I wrote 
I'm putting it here so that you can read it (and respond if you want)
Let us say that there is a man named Bob, and he is rich, tall, kind, popular, and a father. Also, there is another man named Bob, and he is poor, diminutive, immoral, persecuted, and a murderer. Now let us say that one is on my left, the other my right. If I mention 'Bob' to my husband, then which “Bob” am I referring to? Am I referring to the rich and famous one, or the vagrant? Perhaps I was referring to my dentist? Maybe I was referring to my husband? Possibly I was referring to the man I met the other day? By chance I am speaking of ‘Bob the Holy’, or ‘Bob the Decapitated’? Maybe I am talking about your second cousin’s great-great-great-great grandfather?
There are hundreds…thousands, maybe even millions of people named “Bob”. Unless you describe the person to whom the name is associated, others will be unable to understand just which “Bob” you refer to.
Now let’s investigate a similar, but different subject. There is a chair, and it is velvet lined, inky black, comfortable, large, and has an aluminum skeleton. We named this chair “Blackie”, because of what our 2-year-old daughter once called it, but if I instead called it “James”, would it change in any way, shape or form? Is the chair still velvet lined, inky black, blah, blah, blah?
With no exception, I can call the chair “Larry”, “Onion”, “Blockhead”, “Orangutan”, “Ugolovaritucivizixisuioan”, “Yuck”, etc, and it remains velvet lined, inky black, blah, blah, blah.
Back to our rich “Bob”, if I instead call him “Larry”, does that change the person I am referring to? If I call him “Your-stepmothers’-worst-nightmare”, is he still rich, tall, kind, popular, and a father? Of course he is. In fact, no matter what I call him, he will not magically change in any way, shape, or form.
To define “Bob”, would not a fit description be: Somebody/something named Bob? If that is indeed the case, then would it not be more grammatically correct to refer to a man by the name of “Bob” as “a Bob”?
Why, you might wonder, the sudden inclusion of “a”. Well, we define “Chair” as something that is sat upon, yet it applies to more than one thing. If there were only one chair present in this world, then it would be called “Chair”. However, because there exists more than one chair, we pluralize the word, and thus we own A chair, sit upon A chair, or pull up A chair.
The same functionality must apply to the name “Bob” in the English language, lest it playfully toss aside one of its primary concepts: pluralization.
In the morning, I say hello to a bob at my workplace, in the evening I come home to a bob whom lives in my house, yesterday I met a bob who fell off of his bicycle. I see so many people who go by the name of Bob, and yet are not defined by it.
You may be wondering if any name is also a real identity (One that almost everyone, if not everyone, associates with a single person or thing or entire concept.), and I believe that such descriptive names exist.
In example of such names: Leaning Tower of Pisa, Eiffel Tower, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein, Aristotle, Socrates, Gravity, etc. If you say one of these names to just about any learned person, they immediately understand who/what you are talking about.
We do not call him A Galileo, but rather Galileo. We do not call it an Eiffel Tower, for it is The Eiffel Tower. We do not say that it is A Gravity, but instead that it is Gravity. These very different things are all common in one way: they have an identity attached to their name.
Most names are not unique to a single thing/whatever, and therefore only convey a generality. Large generalities include things like sex, ethnicity, religious background, nationality, and often name.
In an example…You may be Female, Caucasian, Christian, American, and named Britney. Then you type all of those features into one of those find-the-person sites, and find that there exists many people listed under your name, sex, ethnicity, religious background, and nationality.
If you were named “Norzhias” though, you would probably come up with only your own name, no matter the sex, ethnicity, etc, that you belong to. If your name is unique, then your name defines your identity, and you would never be confused with a few hundred thousand other people.
A unique name defines your existence completely by itself. If there was only one chair in the world, and its name was “Chair”, then the name of “Chair” would completely describe its existence, with the name including every feature it might posses.
If all of us had unique names, then one’s identity would be very easy to recall, without confusion, by mere mention of it. As wonderful as that sounds… there are some problems with unique names.
For a name to be completely unique to a person, it must have NEVER been used, even by your long deceased ancestors. And if we are all named in English, then we only have 26 letters (6 of them vowels) to work with. With a finite amount of names, we cannot uniquely name an infinite amount of things.
Therefore, I propose that we begin attaching numbers (which are infinite) to our names. My first name is Aerzia... If such is a unique name: I remain Aerzia. If I am the second one to be named so: then I become Aerzia the Second. If I am the forty-fifth: I become Aerzia the Forty-Fifth.
Represented simply: Aerzia, Aerzia2, Aerzia45, etc. If I was Aerzia45, my friends would still call me Aerzia, I would still be generally known as Aerzia... but if someone was attempting to obtain my attention in a crowd: They would shout out for Aerzia the Forty-Fifth... and this would avoid the embarrassing situation of them having to meet Aerzia the 512th, Aerzia the 60th, and Aerzia the 4th.
Simplicity itself No longer am I an Aerzia... but rather just Aerzia(+insert number here). My name once again defines me, a great deal less confusion is avoided, and less clarification is needed.
I'm putting it here so that you can read it (and respond if you want) Identity
Let us say that there is a man named Bob, and he is rich, tall, kind, popular, and a father. Also, there is another man named Bob, and he is poor, diminutive, immoral, persecuted, and a murderer. Now let us say that one is on my left, the other my right. If I mention 'Bob' to my husband, then which “Bob” am I referring to? Am I referring to the rich and famous one, or the vagrant? Perhaps I was referring to my dentist? Maybe I was referring to my husband? Possibly I was referring to the man I met the other day? By chance I am speaking of ‘Bob the Holy’, or ‘Bob the Decapitated’? Maybe I am talking about your second cousin’s great-great-great-great grandfather?
There are hundreds…thousands, maybe even millions of people named “Bob”. Unless you describe the person to whom the name is associated, others will be unable to understand just which “Bob” you refer to.
Now let’s investigate a similar, but different subject. There is a chair, and it is velvet lined, inky black, comfortable, large, and has an aluminum skeleton. We named this chair “Blackie”, because of what our 2-year-old daughter once called it, but if I instead called it “James”, would it change in any way, shape or form? Is the chair still velvet lined, inky black, blah, blah, blah?
With no exception, I can call the chair “Larry”, “Onion”, “Blockhead”, “Orangutan”, “Ugolovaritucivizixisuioan”, “Yuck”, etc, and it remains velvet lined, inky black, blah, blah, blah.
Back to our rich “Bob”, if I instead call him “Larry”, does that change the person I am referring to? If I call him “Your-stepmothers’-worst-nightmare”, is he still rich, tall, kind, popular, and a father? Of course he is. In fact, no matter what I call him, he will not magically change in any way, shape, or form.
To define “Bob”, would not a fit description be: Somebody/something named Bob? If that is indeed the case, then would it not be more grammatically correct to refer to a man by the name of “Bob” as “a Bob”?
Why, you might wonder, the sudden inclusion of “a”. Well, we define “Chair” as something that is sat upon, yet it applies to more than one thing. If there were only one chair present in this world, then it would be called “Chair”. However, because there exists more than one chair, we pluralize the word, and thus we own A chair, sit upon A chair, or pull up A chair.
The same functionality must apply to the name “Bob” in the English language, lest it playfully toss aside one of its primary concepts: pluralization.
In the morning, I say hello to a bob at my workplace, in the evening I come home to a bob whom lives in my house, yesterday I met a bob who fell off of his bicycle. I see so many people who go by the name of Bob, and yet are not defined by it.
You may be wondering if any name is also a real identity (One that almost everyone, if not everyone, associates with a single person or thing or entire concept.), and I believe that such descriptive names exist.
In example of such names: Leaning Tower of Pisa, Eiffel Tower, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein, Aristotle, Socrates, Gravity, etc. If you say one of these names to just about any learned person, they immediately understand who/what you are talking about.
We do not call him A Galileo, but rather Galileo. We do not call it an Eiffel Tower, for it is The Eiffel Tower. We do not say that it is A Gravity, but instead that it is Gravity. These very different things are all common in one way: they have an identity attached to their name.
Most names are not unique to a single thing/whatever, and therefore only convey a generality. Large generalities include things like sex, ethnicity, religious background, nationality, and often name.
In an example…You may be Female, Caucasian, Christian, American, and named Britney. Then you type all of those features into one of those find-the-person sites, and find that there exists many people listed under your name, sex, ethnicity, religious background, and nationality.
If you were named “Norzhias” though, you would probably come up with only your own name, no matter the sex, ethnicity, etc, that you belong to. If your name is unique, then your name defines your identity, and you would never be confused with a few hundred thousand other people.
A unique name defines your existence completely by itself. If there was only one chair in the world, and its name was “Chair”, then the name of “Chair” would completely describe its existence, with the name including every feature it might posses.
If all of us had unique names, then one’s identity would be very easy to recall, without confusion, by mere mention of it. As wonderful as that sounds… there are some problems with unique names.
For a name to be completely unique to a person, it must have NEVER been used, even by your long deceased ancestors. And if we are all named in English, then we only have 26 letters (6 of them vowels) to work with. With a finite amount of names, we cannot uniquely name an infinite amount of things.
Therefore, I propose that we begin attaching numbers (which are infinite) to our names. My first name is Aerzia... If such is a unique name: I remain Aerzia. If I am the second one to be named so: then I become Aerzia the Second. If I am the forty-fifth: I become Aerzia the Forty-Fifth.
Represented simply: Aerzia, Aerzia2, Aerzia45, etc. If I was Aerzia45, my friends would still call me Aerzia, I would still be generally known as Aerzia... but if someone was attempting to obtain my attention in a crowd: They would shout out for Aerzia the Forty-Fifth... and this would avoid the embarrassing situation of them having to meet Aerzia the 512th, Aerzia the 60th, and Aerzia the 4th.
Simplicity itself No longer am I an Aerzia... but rather just Aerzia(+insert number here). My name once again defines me, a great deal less confusion is avoided, and less clarification is needed.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
