| WikiProject Anthroponymy (Rated B-Class) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 |
 External links checked 2008-09-19. Three links revised. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
I found the statement under English names fairly inaccurate. It's elitest to suggest that only women in academia, medicine, law change their names. Some of us choose to keep our names even if we have less prestigious careers. Surely the point needs to be made that some women keep their name on principle
I don't know if information requests are allowed, but if anyone is reading this, I would really appreciate more on Southeast Asian naming patterns, especially Indonesian. Thanks! - anon
Has anyone considered making a wikicities site specifically dealing with surnames? --Rookiee 21:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Isint Ireland one of the first places too use surnames,Mainly because of the reasons people were given surnames in the Ireland section of this.I can remeber reading about it an d being told that this was the case,or it is one of the oldest places to use it.I'm not too sure if I'm right but I can recall something about it.--Mikel-Fikell82 21:46, 03 Nov 2007 (UTC)
A.There was a load of rubbish re: English surnames and white collar workers. Indeed some English surnames were derived from marriages with low ranking sailors hence it is ridiculous to state that people with English surnames were condescending towards other Maltese! Prior to World War II, the upper middle class including professionals such as doctors, notaries etc were in fact pro Italian.
A couple of common surnames included were certainly not common at all.
Q.Why was the part about Malta removed? Is there any specific reason? does one think that Malta should not have its own part? Does anyone think it is fictitious?
I heard that some French also put family name before their given name. Can any French native confirm this?
I insterted things that changed in a 1999 law (that was SEVEN years ago) and that made this section very innacurate. Maybe it has to be re-written or maybe it would be better to make a new section only dedicated to Spain because as I know in South America have different laws for the surnames. The link I put is in spanish, but those who can understand it will see that the section wasn't saying the truth and that it has to be corrected in some ways yet. --Joanberenguer 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Folks, I don't think that saying Fitz was usually used to denote illigitimate descent is correct. In my own humble experience it most certainly is not. It was simply used to denote X was son of Y; in many cases it never evolved into a surname at all. So, if you don't mind, I'll remove that line.
Found in Webster's dictionary on Project Gutenberg :
Fitz (n.) A son; -- used in compound names, to indicate paternity, esp. of the illegitimate sons of kings and princes of the blood; as, Fitzroy, the son of the king; Fitzclarence, the son of the duke of Clarence.
I'm not changing anything in the article, just thought I'd mention this tidbit as I came here looking for precisely that information. I've been reading a book where "Fitz" seemed to bear some kind of insult (as in "bastard") and that got me puzzled for a time.
I've spent YEARS examining medieval and early modern eras and the simple fact of the matter is that fitz was used - as Webster's indicates - simply to indicate paternity. It was not used exclusivly for illigitimate children. It just so happened that some people who used fitz were illigitimate. And it didn't become used as part of a surname for quite some time.Fergananim
--Barbatus 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Why doesn't Englandt have its own section in "by country"...all it has is some of English speaking country. Also surely there should be a section for Wales which has a very distinctive surname system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Does this sentence intend to mean only in England, excluding Wales and Northern Ireland (I see Scotland has its own laws but cannot determine if they affect the choice of name)?
The last name is usually the father's family name, although in England the parents are legally free to choose any surname when the child's birth is registered, and unmarried parents often choose the mother's name.
As an aside I am surprised sexual equality hasn't fully reached the UK's birth and marriage registration procedures (see [1] and [2]). -Wikibob | Talk 22:02, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
There is no mention of the occasional use of two surnames by some British people. There are plenty of examples, but for some reason at the moment I can only think of David Lloyd George. Does anyone have any background on the origin/motivation for this and how prevalent it is/was?
>>Many freed slaves either created family names themselves or adopted the name of their former master. Others, such as Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X,
were muhammad ali and malcolm x freed slaves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.94.44 (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand how, say, William - son of John - becomes William Johnson. But the same logic dictates that William's offspring become Williamsons, and so on. Does any know when names became 'fixed' (so that, e.g., all William's antecedents became Williamsons)? Adambisset 22:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where to put this, but in many parts of Ethiopia, women use their father's given name as their own surname. If somebody could work that it, it would be great. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your wrong. I don't know where you got your info, but I'm Ethiopian and all children (of people who follow the custom) take their father's first name as their last. I'm changing it again to correct this. 24.218.24.39
Some countries (for example Japan) do not allow a wife to have a different family name than her husband.
As for Japan, this statement is logically correct but misleading. It is true that the Japanese law forces a married couple to have the same family name, but it can be either the wife's name or the husband's one. Although to use the husband's is common, it is not mandatory.
In Japan, a convention that a man uses his wife's family name if the wife is an only child is sometimes observed.
This is more or less correct.
In Japan, women surrender their surnames upon marriage, and use the surnames of their husbands.
This is not necessarily true as I said before.
I would appreciate it if someone would rewrite the explanation concerning Japan taking the above-mentioned fact into consideration.
The entry for India starts with "Similar patronymic customs"
Similar to what?
"Similar patronymic customs exist in some parts of India ... mostly followed in southern regions ..."
while a lot has been detailed about these 'some' people, what is the practice in the rest/most of India ?
"while those in the rest of the country still have a surname or a family name as their last name."
can we expand this? maybe using information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_family_name
I suggest item no. 20 on the contents (China, Hungary, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam) be revised to not include Hungary. Not only does Hungary seem completly out of place (literally) with the other Asian countries on the list, the section including Hungary only makes two mentions of the naming process in Hungary, only one of those mentions being specific to only Hungary.
Mentions are: "In Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Hungarian cultures, the family name is placed before the given names. So the terms "first name" and "last name" are potentially confusing and should be avoided, as they do not in this case denote the given and family names respectively." and "Names of Hungarian individuals are stated in Western order when writing in English." Perhaps start a new section for Hungarian names?
The passages describing how the French Canadians have had several given names do not belong in an article on family names.
Because the term "surname" directs to here, that precludes mention of the totally different use of the word surname in France and in certain old texts in English : an epithet over and above one's true name. The classic example is Zeus the thunderer, in which the epithet was called the surname.
Feudal namery was different, and should be mentioned because it is used in place of the family name. The classic example is Marquis de Lafayette de la Motte (from my memory). He's referred to as Lafayette (or La Fayette), not "La Motte," event though he's an aristocrat getting the rent from both places. --Sobolewski 00:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a clarification: the custom in Vietnam is to write or speak the family name first and then the given name (which consists of one's "middle" name and one's "first" name). So, if a Vietnamese's name were written in American style, then it'd be: first name, middle name, last name. In Vietnamese, it'd be in the following order: family name (aka surname or last name), middle name, first name. Now, when speaking to one another informally, then they use first names. When greeting one another, on the other hand, they may be a little more formal. For example, there's a word a Vietnamese would use to indicate in his greeting that the person he was addressing was older than him, another word is used when the person is younger, and still another when the person is the same age. A rough similiarity in America would be if I addressed my older sibling as "big" brother or "big" sister and my younger sibling as "little" brother or sister. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlujan69 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-22 05:43:31 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about how Hungarians write their names. The article said they write family names first, but do so in "western order". What does that mean? Since Asians indicate family name first, and Hungarians do too, what's the difference between "eastern" and "western" order if both places write the family name first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlujan69 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-22 05:46:49 (UTC)
"Few family names are still in the original Latin, and usually they indicate from or with pretensions to antiquity, e.g. de Judicibus or de Laurentis" Does this mean that many Italian surnames have been consistently used since Roman times? I know the Chinese surnames can go back 2500 years but there aren't many others which I know do the same... anybody with info about this? Domsta333 11:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The information that italian family names are around 350000 is unsubstantiated. Worse, the only reference there is to a newspaper ("Il Corriere della Sera") which quotes back to wikipedia. Circular quotations should not be allowed.
I am looking over articles like "psuedonym" and "pen name" because I think some sort of refactoring is in order; there are many ways to refer to people by name, many of them are contextual, and right now there's a pile of unrelated articles of varying quality. This article does a good job on family names, but I think the issue of what names get used in what order in which contexts is a seperate issue, and needs its own article.
I think there should be an article that gives an overview of the types of names; there are chinese temple and posthumous names, regnal names for popes and nobles, handles for hackers and cb users, pen names, mobster epithets, aliases, etc etc etc. Three years ago someone proposed something like this in the main Name articles; I'll go out on a limb and start Human names. Better title suggestions welcome...
The "european surname first" section above notes that there's a whole other usage of surname, so I propose surname get its own (probably short) article that explains the two meanings (epithet and family name).
(is there a correct place to hold a refactoring discussion to affect maybe six or eight articles? village pump? just choose one talk page? a sort of meta-talk page, persistant and spanning several articles, is what I'm after, but I'm still too much of a noob to know if that structure exists...) Akb4 20:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The introduction states that a surname identifies what family the bearer belongs to. The article itself, however, indicates many types that would not do so. (Such as a surname indicating personal characteristics.) Is there maybe a better definition in more common usage?
I would rather see a more straightforward one, like for example:
Up to the nineteenth century most Scandinavians had only a first name and a patronymicon, like in Iceland to this day, e.g. Hans Andersen or Andersson, (Hans, son of Anders) or Hildur Andersdatter or Andersdotter (Hildur, daughter of Anders). Among clerics these names were sometimes Latinized, e.g. Olaus Petri (Olof or Olaf, son of Peter). Names ending in -sen (Danish, Norwegian) or -son (Swedish) are still common, but these names are now real family names, being frozen in the nineteenth or early twentieth century.
Real family names took form during the late medieval and Renaissance eras among nobles, clerics and townspeople. They were of several kinds. Among the nobility names could be nicknames, e.g. Brahe (“the good one”), or taken from the coat of arms, e.g. Gyldenstierne (“golden star”). Some of these names were taken up as family names as late as the sixteenth century – for example the Swedish king Gustaf I Vasa was always known as Gustaf Eriksson among his contemporaries.
Among the clergy the fancy for Latin names continued and would often indicate origin, e.g. Linnaeus (from the house with the lime-tree, lind in Swedish). In the eighteenth century when things Latin went out of fashion some of these families cut out the -us, often making the name ending -in, -én, -ell.
Among townspeople trade, e.g. Møller (miller), nicknames or the village of origin were most common name-giver. But particularly in Sweden a fashion for adorning names of origin with imaginary, almost-nobility-sounding suffixes appeared in the eighteenth century, e.g. Strindberg (from Strinne, adding “berg” or mountain). With time, anything could work as a suffix, e.g. Hedtjärn (heath mere), Munkhammar (monk rock), but it is always the first element that’s important, often being taken from the place of origin.
Primarily in Denmark and Norway, farmers also began to use family names in the nineteenth century, usually taking them from the name of their farmstead, e.g. Vestergaard (west farm) or Nyrud (new clearing). A strange variety was the habit in Dalarna in Sweden to put the farm name before the first name and the patronymicon, e.g. Näs Lars Jonsson (“Isthmus farm Lars Jonsson”). Swedish farmers were more likely to take names the same kind of names as townspeople.
German family names are very common in Scandinavia, due to much immigration from Germany for hundreds of years.
Is it possible to add a section on arabic surnames? I would imagin that they use a structure simillar to Hebrew/Jewish. they could be grouped as "semetic" surnames etc..
I see that Surname redirects to this artical, but sur-name (as it is spelled in wikipedia articals) doesn't. Does it become redundent to include such forwardings at some point, or should it be added? LeVirus Watts 4:03 pm MNT, 29 Sept 2006
Many of the comments in the introduction seem to have a fairly negative air toward Westerners, but this comment in particular struck me as odd:
general lack of historical knowledge among most people in Western cultures
Does anyone else think this should be removed, or at least toned down?
Apparently it HAS been removed, since I don't see it there now!
Laurie Fox 06:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall reading in a National Geographic or something that Mongolians were not allowed to take surnames under Communist rule. Once communism fell in Mongolia, everyone took surnames and almost half took the name Khan (after Gengis). Anyone have any sources or information on the subject? Makerowner 05:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There are also the "dashed" surnames in the Philippines; mostly among the Igorots. Among the Igorots too(mostly Ibalois), there are some surnames that are Chinese-sounding like Fongwan, Folayang, Ayochok, etc
While the article is pretty comprehensive in covering the present situation relating to surnames throughout the world, I think some parts of the opening needs work to represent a more worldwide view. They are:
This may need a "[citation needed]" tag. The East Asian cultures (China, Korea, Japan etc) had and regularly used surnames long before the 12th century. I question the use of the word "most", unless some evidence can be supplied that a majority of the world's population belonged to cultures that did not use surnames at that time.
This should read, "[o]ne of the most accepted theories for the origin of surname use in England/Great Britain [...]" --Sumple (Talk) 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The most common Dutch surnames in Belgium are Peeters, Janssens, Maes, Jacobs, Willems, Mertens, Claes, Wouters, Goossens, and De Smet. Dutch surnames in Belgium tend to resemble first names more often than in the Netherlands, e.g. the following first names relate to above surnames: e.g. Peter, Jan, Jacob, Willem, Maarten, Klaas, and Wouter.
It's not so much that these names, called "patronymics" *resemble* first names, as it is that they are actually *derived* from the father's first name.
The trailing s reportedly once meant "son of", so Willems would be "Willem's son".
The use of the word "reportedly" implies that there is some doubt in the writer's mind as to the veracity of the fact being stated. Any such doubt could be erased by referring to the "Main article," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_name#Patronymics which clearly explains the meaning of the "trailing s." And, not only did it once mean "son of," in fact, it still does mean "son of!"
While the use of family names derived from patronyms may be more common in Belgium than in the Netherlands it is, neverthless, also common there, so perhaps this explanation should be in the first paragraph, rather than in the Belgium paragraph. Laurie Fox 08:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
As a dutchman, the only explanation I can give is that the added 's' it doesnt mean "son of", but it simly means "of". As in the person is a decedant of Willem. Willemsen implies "son of", as this surname used to be willemzoon, but over time changed from willemzoon, to willemsen. The trailing 's' meaning "son of" in old dutch doesnt really make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.133.207 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What about Kenya, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, etc -- African countries don't seem to be covered at all apart from Ethiopia/Eritrea... --128.230.235.107 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest reorganizing and alphabetizing the sections of this article to make it easier to find the area you're interested in. To avoid having a list of every country and tribe, I also suggest adding different levels, for example:
Africa General practices followed by exceptions
Asia
Europe - general practice
For a start, we could just alphabetize the sections until we get some consensus on the "taxonomy" of naming systems. --DBlomgren 05:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there's a better name for this article - perhaps "naming customs" since many cultures don't have surnames per se. I see that some cultures that don't have surnames are included with a brief explanation and then a redirect to their own naming system.
It seems to me that a master article named something like "naming customs" could explain different conventions, and then redirect to "surname," "habesha names," "Korean names," etc., without making "family name" the master article. (Well, not exactly "master" because I'm aware there's a name article.) A lot of stuff in this article that doesn't relate to family names per se would be more appropriate in it. Reactions to this idea? --DBlomgren 06:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
There should be more mention of how land-owners, nobility in particular, often use their land or realm as a last name, even if they may have a last name themselves (like how Prince Harry uses Wales as a last name despite it technically being Mountbatten-Windsor). VolatileChemical 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that there was a short discussion on non-worldwide view issues but it does not appear these issues were addressed in the actual article. There is more of an issue, though, than was pointed out. Family names, even in Europe, did not begin in the Middle Ages. In the classical Roman times family names were the norm, at least among the citizens of Rome. During the Roman Imperial era of Western Europe there would have been people all over Europe that used family names although it would not have applied to everyone (I think the practice even goes back to classical Greek times although I am not 100% certain of that part of it). When the Western Roman Empire fell the practice died out to a large extent in the West although it continued in the rest of the empire (i.e. what was later referred to as the Byzantine Empire). The supposed development of surnames in Western Europe during the late Middle Ages was simply redeveloping what had gone on in Europe and Asia at various times for centuries. --Mcorazao 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
iceland has two places in the article 217.42.161.233 20:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems like someone has to deal with the 'forking problem' for this article. andreasegde 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"If the name has no suffix, it may or may not have a feminine version. Sometimes it has the ending changed (such as the addition of -a). In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, suffixless names are feminized by adding -ová, but this is not done in neighboring Poland."
Actually it DOES happen in the neighboring Poland. Suffixless names are feminized not just by the suffix -owa (-ova) but also byt -ówna (-ovna). If the family name is for example Czub it is Mr. Czub, Mrs Czub and Miss Czub. However, two feminine endings can be added to the name: -owa and -owna. The first indicates that the woman is the wife of Mr Czub and the latter that she is his daughter. So Mrs. Czubowa, and Miss Czubowna. However the usage of these suffixes is becoming obsolete these days. (212.76.37.174 12:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
"Today, although most Polish speakers do not know about noble associations of -ski endings, such names still sound somehow better to them."
I dont think this statement is appropriate and i think it should be removed. Unless of course the author has some made some research into what "most Polish speakers know" and "what sounds better to them". If so I suggest she/he should add bibliography. (212.76.37.174 12:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
Amazing article.
Bornstein could be a version of Bernstein--amber. Born means fountain or well, so Wellstone might be related.
The article is amazing indeed. It's almost 100% fact-free. We can do better than this unsourced, self-contradictory mishmosh (comments in italics):
Until a few hundred years ago, Ashkenazim (Jews from Northern and Eastern Europe)
Italian Jews are Ashkenazic too.
followed no tradition of surnames, but used patronymics within the synagogue, and matronymics in other venues.
The part about patronymics is more-or-less correct. (Members of the priestly clans--Kohen and Levite--used those names in the synagogue along with patronyms.) Matronyms were much less common, and the synagogue/trade dichotomy is news to me: any evidence or reference for this? On the other hand, rabbis and their families did indeed use surnames that lasted from generation to generation.
For example, a boy named Joseph of a father named Isaac would be called to the Torah as Joseph ben Isaac. That same boy of a mother named Rachel would be known in business as Joseph ben Rachel.
Is this an actual example? Where did this happen?
A male used the Hebrew word ben ("son") and a female used bas ("daughter").
When Northern European countries legislated that Jews required "proper" surnames, Jews were left with a number of options. Many Jews (particularly in Austria, Prussia, and Russia) were forced to adopt Germanic names.
Prussia most certainly did not require Germanic or German-language names. Cohen (Hebrew), Cantor (Latin), Kaczinsky (Polish), Alexander (Greek), etc. all appear many times on the original surname-adoption lists.
In 1781, Emperor Joseph II of Austria announced an Edict of Toleration for the Jews, which established the requirement for hereditary family names. The Jews of Galicia did not adopt surnames until 1785. He issued a law in 1787 which assumed that all Jews were to adopt German names. The city mayors were to choose the name for every Jewish family. A fee was charged for names related to precious metals and flowers, while free surnames were usually connected to animals and common metals.
The "Ekelnamen" myth--that bribes or payments were required in order to avoid assignment of a common or even derogatory surname--is almost completely devoid of supporting evidence, most notably the alleged names themselves and records of the fees. Modern sources such as Alexander Beider's works on Jewish surnames dismiss the whole story.
Many took Yiddish names derived from occupation (e.g. Goldschmidt "Gold-smith"), from their father (e.g. Jacobson), or from location (e.g. Berliner, Warszawski or Pinsker). This makes Ashkenazi surnames similar to Scandinavian and especially Swedish ones.
What does? The -son ending, I suppose. Not too many Swedes named Warszawski.
Many Jews also took names of their Jewish lineage. A person of Priestly (Cohanite) descent could take the last name related to his lineage (e.g. Cohen - Hebrew/Yiddish or Colons - Spanish). If a Jew was a descendant of the Levites, then he could take a surname like Levin, Levi or Levenson.
Which contradicts the assertion about having to take a Germanic surname.
In Prussia, special military commissions were created to choose the names.
These commissions--military only because the government was military in nature--existed only in South Prussia and New East Prussia, which belonged to Prussia only between the 3rd Partition (1795) and the Treaty of Tilsit (1807).
It became common that the poorer Jews were forced to adopt simply bizarre names or even derogatory, offensive ones. Among those created by Ernst Theodor Amadeus Hoffmann were:
If it was so common, where are the records of these names? Why can't we read about them? And why does the only reference to ETA Hoffmann having done such a thing seem to be a novel?
The Jews of Poland adopted names much earlier.
But South Prussia was the heartland of Poland. So why did the Prussians have to have commissions, if the Jews already had surnames???
Those who were adopted by a szlachta family usually changed the name to that of the family.
How often did this happen?
Christened Jews usually adopted either a common Polish name or a name created after the month of their baptism. Thus, many Frankists adopted the name Majewski after the month of May in 1759.
Not sure what this even has to do with Ashkenazi surnames.
Both the given names and surnames of Ashkenazim today may be completely European in origin, though many will also possess a traditional Hebrew name for use only in the synagogue.
Or a traditional non-Hebrew one, as many women do. Alexander, Kalonymus, Mordechai etc. aren't Hebrew either (first 2 Greek, last one Persian). RogerLustig 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia contains an article that covers the topic of Ashkenazi surnames, I've removed the section and put in a pointer to that article.RogerLustig 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason for the inclusion here of the discussion of French-Canadian triple given names? If not, I recommend deletion of that bit.RogerLustig 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I proposed a wikiproject for all name articles, check it out here [3] if you are interested. Remember 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed previously stated "vic" and "vich" to "ic" and "ich" a minute ago. V in these comes from the possesive sufix "ov" or "ev"; "ic" is the suffix describing the heritage, the "son". In that manner, the surname does not have to have "ov" or "ev", like mine, i.e. it can be formulated without or with some other possesive ending, like Anicic, coming from Anica-> Anicin (belonging to Anica)-> Anicic (the son of Anica).Perhaps someone can reformulate it a bit clearer. Best regards to all Natasa Katic
"Italian women don't switch their surname to that of their husband upon marriage." That's not strictly correct. They usually add it as a second surname, if not officially.
"In a new proposal of law, the son can be given the surname of the mother rather than the usual father's." AFAIK this law is already been "active" for a few years, but I'm not sure.
--Lo'oris 12:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I browsed through this article and could not find any section dealing with African surnames. The only reference I found was made in regards to African-American families. Unless I somehow missed this information within this article, it seems that names of an entire continent are being left out. I would add such information myself, but currently am not knowledgeable enough in that area and have no time to research the subject. Could someone who knows more about African surnames, or knows where to locate such information, add an appropriate section to the article? Of course, in a perfect world, it would be great to have information on names associated with specific areas, countries, and tribes within Africa, but for the moment a general section on African surnames would do. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'll try to come back at a later point in time and assist with this myself, once I have the time to do some research. Thanx in advance, ~ Homologeo 00:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The German section states "There are about 1,000,000 different family names in German." The Italian section states "Italy has more different surnames than any other country in the world, around 350,000." Please fix this. Fig 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a pretty long article, even by wiki standards. Maybe we could break it into different pages per region or custom. That way, the main article is concise, while the specifics per region are explained more thoroughly in another page.Grifter tm (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The following appears in the article: Armenian last names can also contain ian, but does not mean that they have to be Persian however they still hold the Persian suffix, "ian". This is not a sentence. I'd rewrite it, but I don't know what it's trying to say and I am not knowledgeable about this subject. (Armenian last names that contain ian "hold the Persian suffix 'ian'"? That's redundant. Armenian last names that contain ian do not "have to be Persian"? What does that even mean?) Here are some suggestions (I don't know which, if any, are true statements, so I won't put them in the article myself):
Cjoev (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I just have a question about Iranian / Persian surnames that has been bugging me for some time, and is not answered on this page at this time. I noticed that most have two "official" surnames, however, many seem to go by only one name (the first one). Are the two surnames the surnames of the mother and father? If so, which one typically comes first (i.e. is there any ordering convention), and do most people choose one or the other? Can someone please shed some light on this.
Heymanamen (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is clearly too long; this coming weekend I'll split the national/regional/ethnic sections into separate articles for each one (using existing articles as possible), and leave this article as an overview. Please discuss if you've any concerns or would like to assist me in this.
Nbarth (email) (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I could find reliable statistics on Aussie surnames? Something with the name and how many bear it, if possible with the states but I'm not picky. By reliable I mean not hosted on Geocities :), hopefully government but commercial (but free) is fine too. And I realise the talk page is for discussion of the article, but if we keep quiet we won't get eaten! It'll be our little secret.... that sounds so wrong.. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 13:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Any comment before I repair some overlinking such as:
In some places, civil rights lawsuits or constitutional amendments changed the law so that men could also easily change their married names (e.g., in British Columbia and California)
and
In Southern Gospel and folk music, families often perform together as groups. When female artists in these genres marry, they usually adopt double-barrelled surnames if...
Petershank (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Surname is currently a worse than useless article on surnames. It leaves me more confused than before I saw it and it is not in the least bit obvious that there's an article on surnames here. Apparently that's because for some people "surname" has a different meaning to "family name". I don't know how true that is and no-one seems to want to elaborate on the distinctions between surnames, family names and last names (other than that of course surnames/family names aren't necessarily last names).
In general Wikipedia solves the problem of minor distinctions like between family name and surname by having one single article on the two topics and if there's any distinctions having a paragraph or so explain that. That is what I think should happen here, or at least it's the easiest option and will make Wikipedia better faster.
However, this article observes that it's too long. And if there is some distinction between surnames and family names and some better way of organising articles on surnames and family names and patronyms and clan names and job-description-type-names that historically developed into surnames and whatever else we can think of, then maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about should:
I would do this except that a distinction between "surnames" and "family names" is not one that I've ever made; I have long been under the impression (for instance) that Bjork doesn't have a surname, she has a patronym instead.
The current problem though is that it's not obvious that there is a good and detailed article about surnames if you go to the wikipedia page on surname. This makes the page currently worse than useless.
—Felix the Cassowary 06:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh I forgot some discussion at Talk:Surname exists already. I'm posting this here because there's evidently more people here.
In Costa Rica and some other Latin American countries, a man has to accept paternity of a child before his last name (specifically his primer apellido) can be given to the child. Is it similar in other countries? DBlomgren (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Article currently states: <By 1400, most English and Scottish people had acquired surnames, but many Scottish and Welsh people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century, or even later.> When did the Scots acquire surnames? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Traditional Sinhalese naming convention typically has two names. The first name ends with the suffix -ge ('ge', prnounced 'gay' is Sinhalese for House or Tribe) while the second name is the individual's name. The -ge name usually indicates a special charaterisitc of the family's origins such as a place name, title, occupation etc. So "Muhandiramlage Simon" can be understood as Simon, from the house of Muhandiram (a title for a local leader).
Sinhalese women usually adopt the second name of the spouse after marriage, while retaining the -ge name.
Tamil naming convention has two names. The first name is that of the father, while the second is that of the individual. So 'Ponnambalam Ramanathan' can be understood as Ramanathan, son of Ponnambalam. Women adopt the husband's name.
The naming conventions for Moors (Sri Lankans of arab origin) vary. Typically, the fathers full name may be used as a prefix for the individual's name (which may include multiple names). So Muhammad Ismail Muhammad Saleem could be understood as Muhammad Saleem, son of Muhammad Ismail.
Burghers are Sri Lankans of European origin and typically have names that follow English, Dutch or Portugese conventions.
Many Sri Lankans of all ethnicities today follow the western tradition of having a last name that acts as the family name. Sinhalese typically have last names that are a made up of any two (or sometimes three) of a number of fragments such as Abey-, Jaya-, Wije-, Guna-, -wardene, -suriya, -tilleke, -singhe, etc. Families today are typically multi ethnic and many people have extremely long names composed of multiple names. This has been known to cause problems for Italian computers handling visa applications.
Names: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/index2.html
People belonged to tribes and there were no surnames as such. At birth a person would be named after an event of circumstance, but later in life that person may adopt a different name, again due to an event of circumstance. Ancestry would be established by the tribe's name. The word ngati prefixes a tribes name and means 'descendants of'. So (the tribe) Ngati Tuwharetoa are the descendants of Tuwharetoa.
Pakeha (European New Zealanders) retained their naming traditions which was mostly English, Irish and Scottish.
Pakeha also influenced the local traditions and local Maori people adopted a second name, which was usually the father's name. So 'Maunga Ariki' could be understood as Maunga, son of Ariki. However names could still change due to events or circumstance. As well Pakeha missionaries were baptising much of the Maori. So Nene and Patuone could be two brothers born in the 1700s (and thus without surnames). They could later in life be baptised separately and become Tamati Waka (Thomas Walker) Nene and Hone (John) Maihi Patuone respectively. Therefore despite having the same parents, they have different surnames.
Maori also might have had alternate names. For example a Maori name, an English name, and a Maro version of an English name. Hone Te Awa could thus also be known as John Te Awa, Hone River, John River, Hone Waipapa Te Awa or John Waipapa Te Awa.
Women did not change their name when getting married.
New Zealand names of both Pakeha and Maori typically follow the English tradition of a common surname through all descendants. Maori may have an English surnname such as Wilson as well as a transliteration such as Wirihana.
There are other immigrants to New Zealand that follow their naming traditions (India, China, Samoa, Tonga etc..) or may adopt the English system for convenience.
Why not? It's pretty much the same thing, and it's may be rather confusing to have two separate articles. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)