To childhood at the adulthood, the first name will undergo several crises. Until the word, it did nothing but hear its first name and react to this one. What imports the word, it is simply enough to name, pre-name in fact. Around 3 years, the child realizes that his first name is also used to him to be different from the others, it will give more and more importance to what defines it socially. Said to a child: "you are a frog", it will answer you "I am not a frog, I am Paul". There does not exist yet for him even but by what names. This attachment is necessary. Dolto told that a three year old child returned for the first time to the school, with the call of his first name and of his name it had not answered. While returning the evening at his place he says to his mother: "mom you know at the school, there is a little boy who is called like me, but today it was not there". Which lapse of memory his/her mother had it makes in the speech with his/her son? Although he knows his names and first names, he did not bring them back yet to his own person.

The example which follows could also find its place in the following chapters. A mother addressed to her child only by calling it "my baby". As soon as its family was in to be provided education for age, him for his name was asked: "I am called my baby H.". The mistress tried in vain to explain to him that it was its name, that its first name it was not "my baby" but Marine, nothing did not make there. She thus convened the mother to explain the situation to him. A few days later, the school, when him for his name was asked, it answered: "my baby Marine H.". The "my baby" was registered so much as denomination for the child whom it considered his first name only in appendix. The situation was nevertheless solved until the day when the mother met a man (it lived alone with her daughter). She also called her companion by "my baby". The small Navy then made crisis by explaining to his/her mother that my baby it was it and not the man with whom it shared his life. There was only one "my baby" and it was it. (see also the chapter of the "small-names").

In the first years of schooling, its first name will take a direction. His relationship with the others will be determining. For a little that the first name carries to the joke, nothing will be saved to him. The child will need "to disparage" the first name of the other to fight against his own anguishes related to his catch of identity. He will thus learn how to like or hate his first name, which returns to the type of emotional relation that one maintains and will maintain later with oneself. In certain cases, when this passage meets clashes, the child can manage from there to reproach to his parents the choice of his first name. As if in this refusal one did not recognize oneself in his first name. Error of direction, error of name on the person, as if the first name behaved like a qualifier of the individual. The bad first name on the good person and not the reverse. All the ages, this phenomenon meets, where the used first name is not that of the marital status. One meets as well of the Caroline in the place of Ginette, as of Rachelle in the place of Catherine. Moreover, it seems that this modification meets more among women than at the men. Does one have to see there a revolt of the girl towards his mother, a way of cutting an umbilical cord more choking that another thing? Not to recognize itself in the first name chosen by the parents is equivalent breaking with them, to disavow existing filiation.

With close the phase of latency, at the beginning of adolescence, the first name becomes tool of sexual choice. One érotise the first name of the opposed sex, it "I like this first name" is only makes a derived way of it express his sexual preference for the person to whom one addresses. There will be either the conservation of the school use of the name between buddies, or name by the first name: "you saw Durand this morning" will not have the same range which "you saw Paul this morning".

What's the first question for which it is imperatively necessary to answer in an unconscious or conscious way to allow two people not knowing to be able to continue in a communication exchange? For example when one has is somebody on the telephone, which the first thing which one seeks to know? Without playing riddles longer, it is about the sex of the person. The person to which I address itself, or conversely, is a man or a woman. Did you never feel this embarrassment at the end of the wire when you did not know if it were a man or a woman who spoke to you? In the street, the question does not arise it in a striking way when you cross somebody and that you said yourselves "one would say a girl, one would say a boy..." When a boy looks at a pretty girl of back and that while being turned over this one proves to be that one. The caused embarrassment often leads with the escape or the dislike. Not to know disorder, one needs the response to the sexual identity absolutely.

The human being, in a need for rassurement, must inlassablement answer certain questions in any contact with the other, whether it is animated or inanimate. The sex of the other is the first concerning two individuals, there is in many others. Within a general framework with any thing, an interrogation which is posed systematically is of knowing that this is or who is this. It is necessary to name, turning impossible to circumvent, and when this answer does not come, there is blocking. Science progresses because it manages to name what it does not manage to explain. Let us take the example of the infinite one, which does not have end. It is impossible for the entendement human one to be able to represent it. However because him a name was given, the infinite one, it can exist, this name does not inform more about its representation, but this unimaginable becomes conceivable. Another example, "haspric", at first sight this word does not have any direction, and it is the case indeed, draws two right bars now and another cutting it in right angle and calls that "haspric". We represented something which at the beginning did not exist and ultimately we give him a direction thus. If my drawing does not have a name and that we put the question "which is this?" we would be tempted to answer according to what our knowledge enables us to answer. In other words with what that makes me it think, what that resembles. Now let us draw two right bars, another cutting it and at the end of a bar let us make a very small point. "That this is?", we do not know anything of it, on the other hand we will be able to say that that resembles a "haspric" (I give besides while passing a male kind to my haspric). From the moment when I name, I give direction, I do not know with what my haspric is useful (now I adapt myself it) but I can represent it and in this fields of representation, I can also draw myriade of elements resembling a haspric, since it is enough for me to slightly decline it each time.

Between individuals, an identical situation meets. It arrives one moment when we need to name what we have opposite us to allow a representation to be carried out. It can be a question of the sex, us already saw it, of the first name, the name but without going until there and to reassure the professional, ethnique membership or anything of other is enough. "Which is this?", "it is American" is enough.

A child when it starts to control the word will question you without stop with "say dad it is what that?, that is used for what that?". You know this phase is in general follow-up of eternal "why" of the children. And as soon as the child is in age to write it will ask you without stop how is written such or such thing. Not really to know how the word is written, nor to be able to learn it, integrate it and reproduce it but quite simply to have the proof that there exists indeed as such.

Let's go back with our teenagers, here it is the feeling, the thought which must take direction. The discovery of sexuality at the various first stages freudien of the child are already well forgotten. Around 12 years, the sexual call takes consistency more and more. We evoked the first name like sexual choice.

Later, to call somebody by his first name amounts meaning the degree of "familiarity" which one maintains with him (in France). A form of recognition by affinities as well as use of the vous and the use of the tu. A hierarchy of the relation in the way of naming somebody settles then...

To childhood at the adulthood, the first name will undergo several crises. Until the word, it did nothing but hear its first name and react to this one. What imports the word, it is simply enough to name, pre-name in fact. Around 3 years, the child realizes that his first name is also used to him to be different from the others, it will give more and more importance to what defines it socially. Said to a child: "you are a frog", it will answer you "I am not a frog, I am Paul". There does not exist yet for him even but by what names. This attachment is necessary. Dolto told that a three year old child returned for the first time to the school, with the call of his first name and of his name it had not answered. While returning the evening at his place he says to his mother: "mom you know at the school, there is a little boy who is called like me, but today it was not there". Which lapse of memory his/her mother had it makes in the speech with his/her son? Although he knows his names and first names, he did not bring them back yet to his own person.

The example which follows could also find its place in the following chapters. A mother addressed to her child only by calling it "my baby". As soon as its family was in to be provided education for age, him for his name was asked: "I am called my baby H.". The mistress tried in vain to explain to him that it was its name, that its first name it was not "my baby" but Marine, nothing did not make there. She thus convened the mother to explain the situation to him. A few days later, the school, when him for his name was asked, it answered: "my baby Marine H.". The "my baby" was registered so much as denomination for the child whom it considered his first name only in appendix. The situation was nevertheless solved until the day when the mother met a man (it lived alone with her daughter). She also called her companion by "my baby". The small Navy then made crisis by explaining to his/her mother that my baby it was it and not the man with whom it shared his life. There was only one "my baby" and it was it. (see also the chapter of the "small-names").

In the first years of schooling, its first name will take a direction. His relationship with the others will be determining. For a little that the first name carries to the joke, nothing will be saved to him. The child will need "to disparage" the first name of the other to fight against his own anguishes related to his catch of identity. He will thus learn how to like or hate his first name, which returns to the type of emotional relation that one maintains and will maintain later with oneself. In certain cases, when this passage meets clashes, the child can manage from there to reproach to his parents the choice of his first name. As if in this refusal one did not recognize oneself in his first name. Error of direction, error of name on the person, as if the first name behaved like a qualifier of the individual. The bad first name on the good person and not the reverse. All the ages, this phenomenon meets, where the used first name is not that of the marital status. One meets as well of the Caroline in the place of Ginette, as of Rachelle in the place of Catherine. Moreover, it seems that this modification meets more among women than at the men. Does one have to see there a revolt of the girl towards his mother, a way of cutting an umbilical cord more choking that another thing? Not to recognize itself in the first name chosen by the parents is equivalent breaking with them, to disavow existing filiation.

With close the phase of latency, at the beginning of adolescence, the first name becomes tool of sexual choice. One érotise the first name of the opposed sex, it "I like this first name" is only makes a derived way of it express his sexual preference for the person to whom one addresses. There will be either the conservation of the school use of the name between buddies, or name by the first name: "you saw Durand this morning" will not have the same range which "you saw Paul this morning".

What's the first question for which it is imperatively necessary to answer in an unconscious or conscious way to allow two people not knowing to be able to continue in a communication exchange? For example when one has is somebody on the telephone, which the first thing which one seeks to know? Without playing riddles longer, it is about the sex of the person. The person to which I address itself, or conversely, is a man or a woman. Did you never feel this embarrassment at the end of the wire when you did not know if it were a man or a woman who spoke to you? In the street, the question does not arise it in a striking way when you cross somebody and that you said yourselves "one would say a girl, one would say a boy..." When a boy looks at a pretty girl of back and that while being turned over this one proves to be that one. The caused embarrassment often leads with the escape or the dislike. Not to know disorder, one needs the response to the sexual identity absolutely.

The human being, in a need for rassurement, must inlassablement answer certain questions in any contact with the other, whether it is animated or inanimate. The sex of the other is the first concerning two individuals, there is in many others. Within a general framework with any thing, an interrogation which is posed systematically is of knowing that this is or who is this. It is necessary to name, turning impossible to circumvent, and when this answer does not come, there is blocking. Science progresses because it manages to name what it does not manage to explain. Let us take the example of the infinite one, which does not have end. It is impossible for the entendement human one to be able to represent it. However because him a name was given, the infinite one, it can exist, this name does not inform more about its representation, but this unimaginable becomes conceivable. Another example, "haspric", at first sight this word does not have any direction, and it is the case indeed, draws two right bars now and another cutting it in right angle and calls that "haspric". We represented something which at the beginning did not exist and ultimately we give him a direction thus. If my drawing does not have a name and that we put the question "which is this?" we would be tempted to answer according to what our knowledge enables us to answer. In other words with what that makes me it think, what that resembles. Now let us draw two right bars, another cutting it and at the end of a bar let us make a very small point. "That this is?", we do not know anything of it, on the other hand we will be able to say that that resembles a "haspric" (I give besides while passing a male kind to my haspric). From the moment when I name, I give direction, I do not know with what my haspric is useful (now I adapt myself it) but I can represent it and in this fields of representation, I can also draw myriade of elements resembling a haspric, since it is enough for me to slightly decline it each time.

Between individuals, an identical situation meets. It arrives one moment when we need to name what we have opposite us to allow a representation to be carried out. It can be a question of the sex, us already saw it, of the first name, the name but without going until there and to reassure the professional, ethnique membership or anything of other is enough. "Which is this?", "it is American" is enough.

A child when it starts to control the word will question you without stop with "say dad it is what that?, that is used for what that?". You know this phase is in general follow-up of eternal "why" of the children. And as soon as the child is in age to write it will ask you without stop how is written such or such thing. Not really to know how the word is written, nor to be able to learn it, integrate it and reproduce it but quite simply to have the proof that there exists indeed as such.

Let's go back with our teenagers, here it is the feeling, the thought which must take direction. The discovery of sexuality at the various first stages freudien of the child are already well forgotten. Around 12 years, the sexual call takes consistency more and more. We evoked the first name like sexual choice.

Later, to call somebody by his first name amounts meaning the degree of "familiarity" which one maintains with him (in France). A form of recognition by affinities as well as use of the vous and the use of the tu. A hierarchy of the relation in the way of naming somebody settles then...

In some countries of Asia, all the children are named with the birth: "small mouse". It is only at age the 6 months that him his final first name is given. In this spirit there, there is a will not to name "what does not exist yet". One lets the child strengthen his features, his character, his way of being. Even if it is still very young, it starts to be an individual with whole share and it is only according to what it shows of him that his first name is chosen to him. The subjective share in is reduced considerably, the first name not resting more on one idea of the child whom one will have, but on the child himself. One leaves even the choice to the child, by enumerating first names to him, one looks at how it reacts to the statement of each, one awaits a sign of acceptance. On the basis of the principle which it includes/understands the step, which is not yet the case in our company, it is him which has the free will, any sign, negligible is it is then réinterprêté by the entourage.

In some arab traditions, the choice of the first name intervenes at the 7th day after the birth, never front. What poses numbers of problems for the Moslems of France besides, the marital status asking as of the birth to declare the child.

In Turkey, the young brother does not have the right to call its elder by its first name but "abi" (big brother), a privilege which is not granted to him, a mark of respect. In the Indies and in Eastern Africa a woman should not still pronounce the name of her husband nor that of her father under penalty of punishment. Admittedly, per hour when the emancipation of the woman becomes world cause, one can only be shocked by such practices. One speaks can be primitive companies but behind his prohibitions, one finds a tradition aiming at protecting the tribe. To preserve the heritage through multiple beliefs, even our companies still have recourse there. This one can appear obsolete, but it guarantees an existence specific to those which employ it. These tribes, colonized, on which one imposed our operating modes in the name of progress, hang up again with ancestral customs and habits where the magic still has all its place in the evolution of the individual.

In some tribus, when a king seized the power, all the subjects which carried the same first name that this one were to change some. One even tells that the king of Dahomey Bossa Ahadi simply made put at dead those which prénommaient Bossa like him. (Name, First name. ED Otherwise . Seven 94).

There are only some examples but they show well that there is not universalization of the phenomenon thus not possible generalization. Prénommer, to name renvoit with its lived characteristic, that of its history and of the History of each communities. Our companies function thus because they are obliged there, one returns from there to the introduction of the patronymic name by the Council of Thirty managed by the Church. One tends to adapt the operating mode to the reality of the company and not the reverse. Is this prejudicial?

We meet diminutives of two kinds. The first, in its simple meaning, consists in reducing the first name so that it is shorter to pronounce: Pierre Marie could give Piem, for example. He is inevitably used for the made up first names. Jean Gabriel will give Jean-gab, Jean François will be Jef... We previously saw the impact of a choice of made up first name. As if that were not enough, this one will be moreover seen encroaching of part of its first name. The other first names also undergo the same fate: Alexandra will become Alex, Isabelle, Isa, Francoise, Fanfan. Until schooling, they are the parents who will use the diminutive. The child, alas for them grows and if all occurs well, they cannot use any more to them "my baby, my chichoune...", one is folded back then on the first name which one will modify. There is an emotional role which one carries to the diminutive, an imaginary relation which preserves kind. The child is not perceived like an individual but like a partial object.

There is four "age" where the diminutive can appear. As of the birth, the diminutive will be given by the parents or the entourage. To schooling, this one will be brought by the attended children of the same age, though in this case the nickname is used more. With adolescence, the child grew, the medium in which it also evolves/moves. Then at the adulthood, often by the husband or the woman, it will act here more "small-name".

The couples between them have as a practice to name itself differently. A first name in company, a small name in the intimacy. It is initially a sign of recognition of the couple, an additional symbol. Moumoune, Mamour, Chéri(e), my Doudoune, my Baby, my cabbage, my Lolotte, my Nounours, my Hind, my Ruail, my Chip, my Gnognotte..., I let the reader add with this list the "small name" which it uses to name his (its) partner. The list is long, very long, certain couples seeking even to name itself like anybody, to be single for it with "prénommer" thus. But when one looks at the semantic fields of the expressions employed, there is only one step to cross to arrive at the vocabulary of the baby, with the speech which the mother maintains with her child when any young person it speaks to him.

The "small name" goes from is in a couple, rare which is those use simply the first name. There is a need well to behave kind. A affectivisation of the relation by the means of the use of a small name. A regression towards the childish age where one takes the role of a relative vis-a-vis the loved being. These couples are however adult but they need to name the other as "mom" could have done it. A need for materner it to be liked. One lived unconscious, in addition with delayed-action of the relation oedipienne. This period when the child was with the shelter, was made safe by the statements of his/her mother. One plays the dad and mom. Far from being handicapping, this small name has the merit to confine without excess an unfinished situation which seldom ends. What to think then in a couple when the Other, named thus, is found in position of child, of baby? It is about an unconscious compromise, in turn the man or the woman takes the childish position maternante or paternante then when they are not both at the same time.

" My sun" can be used by a woman for her husband, the reverse also exists, but when it is known that the sun is a male symbol, the man can think of the unconscious reasons which push to call thus it his wife. However the expression "you are the sun of my life" included in numbers of popular songs address to a woman.