Talk:Family name

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the Anthroponymy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Anthroponymy, the study of people's names. This project is dedicated to creating uniform helpful encyclopedia quality articles on the surnames, family names and nicknames of people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.


Please add your new material to the bottom of the page, and include your own ==Heading== as described in the Talk Page Guidelines.

Contents

[edit] name changing and careers

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

[edit] request for Indonesian and other Southeast Asian practices

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

[edit] wikicities site for surnames ?

Has anyone considered making a wikicities site specifically dealing with surnames? --Rookiee 21:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Origins

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)

[edit] Malta

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.

Some surnames were removed - The section about 'noble' surnames included 'Sant' 'Fiott' . These are certainly not noble but common surnames.

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?

[edit] European Surname First

I heard that some French also put family name before their given name. Can any French native confirm this?

It's certainly common when addressing letters to French people, eg Monsieur MITTERAND, Francois,... (Berek - a Scot)
When calling the names of students at the beginning of class, a French teacher would put the family name first. (Birnuson - studied in France)
But those aren't normal speech. The introduction thing. It's like "Bond. James Bond". Canadian high school teachers sometimes take attendance that way too. But that's just because the names are listed like that when printed. (Surnames are almost always the basis of the order of names on lists) It doesn't mean the students would be called like that any other time. Is it different in France? --Menchi 01:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Definitely like Menchi said. It's only in administrative, military, educational, etc. contexts that the last name will be used first. -- (a French native)
Catholic French Canadians use a birthname (first name) which is the last of three given names. A lot of fun when that gets on a passport and you have to explain what your real first name is (Jean - a catholic French Canadian).
No, in spoken French, first names are always first. In written it depends, if more formal then the surname may be written first, but usually the first name is used. (Lived in France, Dutchman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.133.207 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

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)


[edit] Ireland

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

[edit] Russia

  • How "new" is suffix -na?
  • Those possessives look rather awkward, especially bundled together like here.
  • If Ivanova is daughter of Ivanov, then Petrova should be Petrov's daughter.
  • "Wife" implies that woman has no name before marriage. Usually, girls are born first, named, later grow up and sometimes marry.
  • "Voskresenie," though, of course, is Russian for Sunday, is not a "major Orthodox holy day."
  • Frankly, I see no reason to put words in parentheses also in quotes. Why make it difficult?

--Barbatus 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question about why we use parentheses and quotes, it's a matter of typography. The parentheses introduce a parenthetical element to the text, while the quote marks indicate that the quoted words are the English translation of the preceding non-English word. The Rod (☎ Smith) 02:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me ... did I ask any questions? Besides a rhetorical one? --Barbatus 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't be so snotty. You raised the issue; your phrasing isn't that important. Gene Nygaard 14:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Gene! Nothing personal, but I'm just a bit tired of lecturing me on typography. What are my lecturer's credentials? A good sense of measure would be a matter of typography in our little case (if there is, parenthetically speaking, any case). We can, of course, enclose translations in any amount of symbols, but would that make the text easier to read? ... And thank you, Rodasmith, too. ... Oh, speaking about credentials: would over 15 years in publishing be satisfactory? --Barbatus 04:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
With all the truly shoddy publishing being done these days? No! Williamb 06:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't but agree ... publishing quality is in sharp decline. Availability of various "desktop publishing" applications, influx into the industry of people with very limited experience (or no experience at all), and low demand for quality among reading public make things only worse. It seems some publishers don't even use proofreades any more. But all that is not my fault. --Barbatus 16:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Re:Voskresenie. It is true that it means sunday, much like Rodjdestvo(рождество) means birth, but in the contex of a last name I think it is reasonable to assume that they are refering to religios themes. But I agree that the heading "major Orthodox holy days" needs to be changed. Of the list only christmas is really a holiday. King Mir 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not correct ... that is, from the Orthodox point of view. What do you mean by "really a holiday"? A day off? There are twelve major holy days (двунадесятые праздники) celebrated by the Orthodox Christians (Chrismas is one of them, of course). Though I agree the language in question probably should be changed to reflect the main Wiki article (Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church) about those holy days. —Barbatus 03:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. —Barbatus 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] England

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)?

In England the parents can choose the name of the child, the registra must obey their wishes. In Scotland the registar has the right to refuse to register a name if they feel it is inappropriate, though this right is rarely exercised. I'm not sure the article is correct now, but it's too late for me too check. Zeimusu 14:53, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

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?

Combining two surnames isn't unusual, but it's more common to hyphenate them in order to make it clear that they are two surnames rather than a middle name and surname. Either way, the motivation is the same - it's usually done when a couple getting married what to retain both surnames instead of the wife adopting the surname of her husband. Etymologically, there's no difference between "David Lloyd George" and "David Lloyd-George". Calzonic 10:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a number of reasons for double-barrelled surnames - off the top of my head the most common historically tended to be when the male line of a family was dying out and a man without a son would leave his property to his son-in-law, grandson, nephew, cousin etc... (or to the female relative but it's only relatively recently that women have been able to own property in their own right in many countries) on the proviso that the heir add the man's surname to his own. This is probably the main reason why a double-barrelled name is traditionally often assumed to indicate a member (or would be member) of the upper classes. In turn this does make a DBS less desirable in some quarters so many marrying couples don't consider them. Timrollpickering 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

>>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)

[edit] Sons

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)

In England The introduction of the poll tax (1380) was significant people had to register in a locally unique name, also a requirement that people bringing cases to court had to declare their name and "affiliation" either their family name, or their guild or trade led to many of the fixed family names. Add to that the fact that aristocrats already had clan or house names, meant that the newly rich merchent classes wanted to add a bit of class by taking their own family names and the trend spread through society. About 13th-15th century in England. Other countries have different histories. Zeimusu
And in some languages and traditions this change has still not occurred; in many religous ceremonies Jews still are referred to as something more like "rachel daughter of ruth" or "david son of joseph". Akb4 20:43, 29 May 2006 (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

[edit] Japan

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 the interest of being more correct: the motivation is the same as that mentioned in the next sentence for the Chinese tradition, to pass on family assets under the same name when there is no male heir. It also seems to occur when the particular family name is in danger of dying out. --RJCraig 22:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

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.

[edit] India

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

[edit] Hungary

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?

  • Agreed, just noticed this myself and was surprised to see Hungary listed with China, Japan etc. Have split it out into its own (very small) section. I'm sure this could be improved by someone with more time and knowledge... -- Muntfish 07:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should and should not appear in this article

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)

The fact that surname redirects here shouldn't preclude mention that the word surname is often used with variations in meaning—in fact, its just the opposite; that means we should mention that the word surname is used in other ways. Gene Nygaard 14:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnamese names

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)

[edit] Hungarian names

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)

  • I've just created a separate section for Hungarian names... so I hope this is a little clearer. My understanding is that when written in the Hungarian language, a Hungarian would write their surname (family name) first then their given name(s). However when written in English (for example) then the order would be "western" i.e. given name then family name. Also, names of "westerners" do not get "flipped" when written in a Hungarian text. So "Tony Blair" is called that in Hungarian, not "Blair Tony" or whatever. I hope this helps, but please feel free to expand/correct the new section on Hungarian names if you can. Thanks -- Muntfish 07:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian

"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.

[edit] Break it Up?

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)

[edit] Misleading intro?

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 think the intention of the article is to say that a surname does indeed identify the family. However, in the distant past, the practice was for individuals not to have family names but, rather, to have nicknames that identified them as individuals, but were not passed on to their children: simplistically, John, who lived on a hill, might be called John Hill and his son, Tom, who lived by the lake, might be Tom Lake. At some point in history, it became either fashionable, expedient or necessary to fix these nicknames as family names so that, henceforth, Tom Lake's children would be known as 'Lake', even if they moved away from the lake! At this point the name became a family name or surname. (I am only talking here about English surnames - I don't claim any knowledge of family names in other countries.) Bluewave 08:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The article about Scandinavian family names is haphazard

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.


[edit] Arabic Surnames

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..

[edit] Redirecting Sur-name

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

Is sur-name even a real word in English? Bluewave 08:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Comments in Introduction

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)

[edit] Mongolia

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)

Unfortunately that's true. It seems that if trace their ancestry, most of the people will be able to find some direct or indirect relation with this or that taiji (even an untitled one without serfs, without any administrative post, and perhaps poor), a gentry of the Borjigin clan and likely a descendant of Genghis Khan. If they want to feel themselves noblemen, they will take Borjigin as surname. If half of the population has the same surname, the very goal of having surnames becomes senseless. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philippines

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

[edit] Non-worldwide view?

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:

  1. Until the 12th century, most people throughout the world did not use or have a family name, and they were called by the single name they had (which was called a "first" or "given name" only after family names came into use).

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.

  1. One of the most accepted theories for the origin of surname use attributes their introduction to the Normans and the Domesday Book of 1086

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)

Good point, but I would exclude Japan from that list, since commoners did generally not have surnames prior to the Meiji restoration.--Niohe 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
it's true. the beginning of the wiki is flagrantly euro-centric and highly misleading for that reason. Norman/European/Etc surnames. obviously China was home to surnames hundreds/thousands of years before the date given for the historical/theoretical advent of norman surname usage. about the above comment regarding Japan, it doesn't seem relevant that only a minority had surnames. in an encyclopedic discussion of surnames as an phenomenon any ancient surnames are notable128.119.236.212

[edit] Dutch-speaking countries

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)

[edit] African names

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 agree. I found this article in my search to the question "Should Baaba Maal (a Senegalese singer) be referred to as Baaba or Maal?" This article doesn't answer it. :( --DBlomgren 05:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed reorganization and alphabetizing of sections

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

  • Central Africa (if an exception) (Avoid listing every individual country if a geographical area can be grouped together. I also think that because country borders were decided with little or no regard to tribal and ethnic boundaries, country listings will often be meaningless, so I prefer geographical areas.)
    • certain tribe that may be an exception
  • Northeastern Africa (or Horn of Africa)
    • Eritrea and Ethiopia (if they have the same custom, list alphabetically rather than by perceived importance) Here we get into the problem that not everyone knows their African geography. Maybe the geographical subdivisions won't work.
  • etc.

Asia

  • India
    • exceptions
  • Korea
  • etc.

Europe - general practice

  • Country 1 that is an exception to the rule
  • etc.

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)

[edit] Name of article

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)

Sounds very reasonable to me.--Barbatus 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Many of the human naming articles are screwed up; there are massive cultural NPOV issues and lots of overlap and inconsistencies and there should be a cross-article effort to clean things up and reorganize. Naming customs sounds like a fine name. I think in the past I proposed something like "names (human)". I'm not strongly opinionated on the "master" human name article title, I'm more concerned with cleaning up the plethora of related overlapping articles.
Here's my list of related article names as of a few months ago; a lot of these have problems. I think wikipedia should be scoured mostly free of the phrase "real name"; it's not only NPOV, it's vague, too. But there should be an article about the concept (if there isn't already), or it should be mentioned in the "master" article. I'm sure the list below is woefully incomplete. -- Akb4 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are more ethnic name articles I haven't listed. I'm not sure if any Native Americans actually do have "Secret Indian Name"s. Secret names or True Names in general are a concept in fantasy literature; I have no idea if any human cultures actually use them, though I suspect so. No idea if there are articles yet.
I agree with the OP (Dblomgren) that there should be a master article on naming customs for persons. However I believe that article should be Personal name (which already has a good start on it).
(Note that at the present time Personal name does not redirect to Given name, contrary to what Akb4 states in the preceding comment.)
Personal name includes a list of the possible components of a personal name (including given name, family name, etc.) and has a pretty good discussion of name order.
But it does need some honing. An early sentence is confusing: "A personal name is usually given at birth or at a young age, and is usually kept throughout life; there might be additional names indicating family relationships, area of residence, and so on." Is the author speaking of "given name"? Or ignoring the prevalent western custom of a wife taking her husband's family name upon marriage? -- Frappyjohn 05:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nobility

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)

[edit] More on non-worldwide view?

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)

[edit] A 'forking' problem

It seems like someone has to deal with the 'forking problem' for this article. andreasegde 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suffixes in Czech, Slovakian and Polish names

"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))

[edit] Polish names

"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))

[edit] Ashkenazic Name

Amazing article.

Anyone know about the Ashkenazic/Germanic name, Bornstein?
Yes, 'stein' is stone. So the question is, from where or what comes 'Born'; and, what does it mean? Variation on Braun, Boren, Burn, Bern, etc... What could it be?
JBYORK14 at aol dot com 24.44.93.71 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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:

  • Ochsenschwanz ("oxtail")
  • Temperaturwechsel ("temperature change")
  • Kanalgeruch ("sewer stink")
  • Singmirwas ("sing me something") [citation needed]

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)

[edit] French-speaking Countries

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)

[edit] Wikiproject

I proposed a wikiproject for all name articles, check it out here [3] if you are interested. Remember 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufixes in south slavic surnames

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

[edit] Italian surnames

"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)

[edit] African Surnames

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)

[edit] Contradiction

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)

I was going to point out the same thing until I saw this message. It seems to have gone unnoticed for 20 days now, so I changed it. ~Inkington 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Long Article

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)

[edit] Problem with Armenian/Persian suffix

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):

  • Not all names that end with ian are Persian, however: some Armenian names have this suffix.
  • Some Armenian names also use the Persian suffix ian.

Cjoev (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian / Persian Surnames

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)

[edit] Split

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)

You are quite right; a split would be beneficial. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australian data

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)

[edit] Overlinked?

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)

Removing the wikilinks for well-known topics, such as those you mention, is a good idea and would definitely make the article more readable. I'd prefer that you not remove any external links (not that you necessarily intend to), because many of them were added to end edit wars. Ariadne55 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of any edit wars, and had no intentions to remove external links. Thanks for speaking up. Petershank (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)