LBHills
Since: Jun, 2012
Apr 25th 2013 at 10:39:43 AM
•••
Yeah, I don't think they quite fit. They're nonindicative names, but neither of them is inherently "a terrible thing given an innocuous name." There's probably a different trope for 'em.
Two "real life" examples come to mind: 1) Iceland is green and Greenland is icy. The Vikings deliberately swapped the names to mislead non-Vikings into colonizing the wrong one. 2) In genetics, specific genes are usually given a name that is the direct opposite of what they do, because they are named after what happens when said gene is removed. "Eyeless", for example, is a gene in insects that controls the development of eyes. When it is removed, the insects are born with no eyes. I haven't added either of these because I'm not sure if either of them fits this specific trope. While they match the "opposite name" criteria, they don't have the same "fun happy thing of doom" element. Maybe the Viking one? But even that's kind of tenuous...
Hide / Show Replies