Murakami states that to have a name an animal must be able to move on it's own, have feelings and possess senses like sight and hearing (Murakami 152). After a child is conceived the parents now have ten months to bond with their child. They buy gifts for the baby and with every small kick or and sonogram the parents bond with their child deepens. When the child is born the parents have already established a bond with their offspring. When they then decide to name their child they are not giving the baby a name based on its purpose because the child doesn't have one, it simply exists for the parents to care for. Similarly with and owner and its pet. It is customary that when a pet is acquired that the owner gives them a …show more content…
The issue here is that there a various types of boats, and planes. Planes and boats that are for personal use and thus are not utilized by the public would have a name based on their emotional attachment. If someone owned their own plane they would not name it Flight 697. The plane, being their property, would receive a personal name consciously because the owner would feel attached to it. If no emotional bond exists between the naming party and the item, the mobility then falls into question. Having an commodity that is mobile means that its surrounding with continually change. The substance therefore cannot be named after its location so its purpose then falls into question. This is where the naming construct of Flight 679 reenters. Those modes of travel are then labeled for either the number in which they depart or by the desired