first draft
In jokes and stories, certain surnames and surname forms are likely to appear. They will be typical of a group that is looked down on in society or allowed to be made fun of. At the turn of the 20th century, many jokes in the US involved people with German/Yiddish or Scottish/Irish names. The M(a)c- prefix is still used for funny names, e.g. Homer Simpson renaming Marge "Chesty McBoob". Another example is the early 20th century comic character Boob McNutt.
The surname Jones is also used often for funny or light-hearted characters, possibly because its large number in the population make it easy to use without seeming to point to any particular person, thus avoiding provable insult or slander. Some examples are Jughead Jones, Skippyjon Jones, and America Jones. Even Bridget Jones could fall into this category.
Showing posts with label Names. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Names. Show all posts
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
names pt. 2
first draft
What importance does the last name have, compared to the first name? The first name is more personal, more individual, the name your family gives you after some conscious effort, and yet it is the last name that causes brain twisting problems, at least in the United States. The last name is slightly more fluid, historically. This is true for men and women, although in recent history it is only the woman's last name that is expected to change at any point in her life. So, what is this thing called the last name?
Last names define the individual at another level than the first name. They were used as identifiers and for providing information to people who did not know and might never know the individual to which they referred. They also separated people who had the same first name in times and places that was common. For this reason, there are several sources for last names that are repeated in most societies that make use of these monikers: patronymics (Johnson); occupational names (Smith); territorial names; personal description.
Patronymics are one of the simplest ways of getting a surname. It is logical for people to refer to others by the names of their close relatives who are older and better known. Although I use the word "patronymic", names of this type also, if rarely, include mothers, uncles, cousins, and employers. Typically, the old surname used in early forms included an ending that showed in relationship to the named person. The endings in English included -wife, -sone, -doghter, and -man, showing familial and work relationships. In some regions, including Wales and the Low Countries, the patronymic was considered a person's surname until scant centuries ago, while other zones, including England and parts of Germany, began to make surnames hereditary, true "family" names. Iceland today still uses patronymics as surnames and in Russia the patronymic is a sort of middle name, so the usage has not completely died out. As mentioned, old surnames were specific about the kind of relationship the holder had with the better known person, but almost all surviving names of this type refer to the "son", with just a few others to the servant or "man".
Occupational names in English represent the occupations common in the Middle Ages, when surnames began to be fixed and made hereditary, which is why we have Coopers, Smiths and Brewsters (brewestre is the feminine of brewer), but no Photographers, Senators or Scientists. Christopher Andrews in The Name Game, however, mentions names of this sort occurring in Iran, where surnames of the "modern" sort were imposed quite recently. Some of these names make little sense today, after spelling and pronunciation changes, and changes in economy and industry.
Territorial names can be divided into two broad categories: names for where the individual is from; names for what the individual owns. It may sound strange in this age of mobility, but naming somebody for where s/he came from was not very common when English surnames were being established. The majority of people simply did not travel very often or very far. Moving to a neighboring village might happen, but the new resident probably was already known in the community and would have had a surname describing him/her from previous encounters. A more common form of the territorial name is one that describes the area where the individual lives rather than naming a town, region or country. In this category are names like Meadows, Brook, and the exceedingly common Smith (common because it has several possible roots, one being a nickname for somebody living near a dirty stream, from OE smitan). Landowners were often known by the names of their most important territories, or the ones that they were most closely connected with. Even today, English nobles are called by land titles when their family name is completely different. This also gave some examples over history of children taking their mother's surname, because they inherited her (family's) land. In some of these cases, the oldest son would take the father's lands, name attached, while a younger son would take the mother's, so that two full brothers came to have different surnames. Royals and nobles were classes that could and did travel in the past, and their children were known by their birthplaces - e.g. Joan of Acre, a daughter of Edward I of England, who was born while her parents were crusading in Syria.
Finally, a surname might give a description of the person. This could be physical appearance, habitual actions, or character. Race may be from OFr ras, denoting a clean shaven man, although Race was also a personal name, in which case the family name is a patronymic. English Fairfax and Irish Gannon were used for a blond or fair-haired person. Some Devils are descendants of medieval actors who played the Devil in passion plays. Bigods have an ancestor who used the phrase "by God" to excess.
The origins of surnames are interesting enough for linguists, historians and genealogists, but there is also a definite psychological aspect. The surname in Western Society tends to be static. You belong to your family. You may acquire a nickname that supplants your given first name, use your middle name, or choose a completely different name. The surname, however, is rarely changed, except in the case of married women and artists. Artists may be "forgiven" for leaving their roots behind, since the arts, especially performing arts, have not been respected professions in past times. This has changed, but the tradition of the artistic name remains. On the other hand, the married woman, in most Western countries, is expected and almost required to leave her "maiden name" behind once she leaves the courthouse or church. The concept of this requirement is bizarre in today's world, if one looks at it objectively. It effectively demands that one half of a couple relinquish all ties to past and family and "belong" to the family of the other half. For most people, it is a tradition, helpful at best, harmless at worst, but for some it is the very essence of oppression and misogynistic sexism.
The origins of the tradition of the wife taking her husband's surname could be logically explained. As stated in the paragraph on patronymics, it is perfectly sensible and logical to define a person by their relationship to a better-known person. In this sense, it is perfectly logical to define a woman in the Middle Ages by the male closest to her. Women were not expected to be public figures, expect, perhaps for royalty and nobility, and the public face of the household was the husband and father. "That's Beth, Will's daughter. That's Joan, John's wife. That's Sairey, Robert's maid." When a woman married, her definition would logically change as the public figure closest to her went from being her father to her husband. As a tradition, it was not universal. In modern Hispanic countries, women never officially take their husband's name as their only surname, although they may be known by it socially. Cervantes mentions in Don Quixote that it was the tradition of Castille for women to use their husbands' names, leaving the reader to conclude that it was a custom peculiar to the region and/or time, since it had to be specifically explained. Of course, the good novelist does not say whether legal documents, such as a will or census, name the woman by her husband's name or her father's name. This much is logic: distinguishing name from a known or public figure. This became tradition. However, many things which were traditions have fallen by the wayside of society for various reasons, why not the renaming of women? It remains an extremely sensitive subject for a great many people in Western culture, particularly in the US, with extremists of both genders on both sides of the issue. These days it is easy enough to keep or change your surname in the US, being a woman or a man, and the only thing that really stops women from keeping and men from changing is the crushing weight of tradition, with a topper of fear of ridicule.
By extension, we might ask why a child is given the father's surname by default, whether the parents are married or not. When the parents are married, and the wife has taken the husband's name, there is no confusion at all. When there are two parental surnames, things can get tricky. It would seem like the most logical thing for the child to receive the surname of the primary care-giver, which would in the majority of cases be the mother.
A complex world requires complex tags. The surname is accepted as a necessity by almost all the world's population, but its forms may be reevaluated at any time as society evolves.
What importance does the last name have, compared to the first name? The first name is more personal, more individual, the name your family gives you after some conscious effort, and yet it is the last name that causes brain twisting problems, at least in the United States. The last name is slightly more fluid, historically. This is true for men and women, although in recent history it is only the woman's last name that is expected to change at any point in her life. So, what is this thing called the last name?
Last names define the individual at another level than the first name. They were used as identifiers and for providing information to people who did not know and might never know the individual to which they referred. They also separated people who had the same first name in times and places that was common. For this reason, there are several sources for last names that are repeated in most societies that make use of these monikers: patronymics (Johnson); occupational names (Smith); territorial names; personal description.
Patronymics are one of the simplest ways of getting a surname. It is logical for people to refer to others by the names of their close relatives who are older and better known. Although I use the word "patronymic", names of this type also, if rarely, include mothers, uncles, cousins, and employers. Typically, the old surname used in early forms included an ending that showed in relationship to the named person. The endings in English included -wife, -sone, -doghter, and -man, showing familial and work relationships. In some regions, including Wales and the Low Countries, the patronymic was considered a person's surname until scant centuries ago, while other zones, including England and parts of Germany, began to make surnames hereditary, true "family" names. Iceland today still uses patronymics as surnames and in Russia the patronymic is a sort of middle name, so the usage has not completely died out. As mentioned, old surnames were specific about the kind of relationship the holder had with the better known person, but almost all surviving names of this type refer to the "son", with just a few others to the servant or "man".
Occupational names in English represent the occupations common in the Middle Ages, when surnames began to be fixed and made hereditary, which is why we have Coopers, Smiths and Brewsters (brewestre is the feminine of brewer), but no Photographers, Senators or Scientists. Christopher Andrews in The Name Game, however, mentions names of this sort occurring in Iran, where surnames of the "modern" sort were imposed quite recently. Some of these names make little sense today, after spelling and pronunciation changes, and changes in economy and industry.
Territorial names can be divided into two broad categories: names for where the individual is from; names for what the individual owns. It may sound strange in this age of mobility, but naming somebody for where s/he came from was not very common when English surnames were being established. The majority of people simply did not travel very often or very far. Moving to a neighboring village might happen, but the new resident probably was already known in the community and would have had a surname describing him/her from previous encounters. A more common form of the territorial name is one that describes the area where the individual lives rather than naming a town, region or country. In this category are names like Meadows, Brook, and the exceedingly common Smith (common because it has several possible roots, one being a nickname for somebody living near a dirty stream, from OE smitan). Landowners were often known by the names of their most important territories, or the ones that they were most closely connected with. Even today, English nobles are called by land titles when their family name is completely different. This also gave some examples over history of children taking their mother's surname, because they inherited her (family's) land. In some of these cases, the oldest son would take the father's lands, name attached, while a younger son would take the mother's, so that two full brothers came to have different surnames. Royals and nobles were classes that could and did travel in the past, and their children were known by their birthplaces - e.g. Joan of Acre, a daughter of Edward I of England, who was born while her parents were crusading in Syria.
Finally, a surname might give a description of the person. This could be physical appearance, habitual actions, or character. Race may be from OFr ras, denoting a clean shaven man, although Race was also a personal name, in which case the family name is a patronymic. English Fairfax and Irish Gannon were used for a blond or fair-haired person. Some Devils are descendants of medieval actors who played the Devil in passion plays. Bigods have an ancestor who used the phrase "by God" to excess.
The origins of surnames are interesting enough for linguists, historians and genealogists, but there is also a definite psychological aspect. The surname in Western Society tends to be static. You belong to your family. You may acquire a nickname that supplants your given first name, use your middle name, or choose a completely different name. The surname, however, is rarely changed, except in the case of married women and artists. Artists may be "forgiven" for leaving their roots behind, since the arts, especially performing arts, have not been respected professions in past times. This has changed, but the tradition of the artistic name remains. On the other hand, the married woman, in most Western countries, is expected and almost required to leave her "maiden name" behind once she leaves the courthouse or church. The concept of this requirement is bizarre in today's world, if one looks at it objectively. It effectively demands that one half of a couple relinquish all ties to past and family and "belong" to the family of the other half. For most people, it is a tradition, helpful at best, harmless at worst, but for some it is the very essence of oppression and misogynistic sexism.
The origins of the tradition of the wife taking her husband's surname could be logically explained. As stated in the paragraph on patronymics, it is perfectly sensible and logical to define a person by their relationship to a better-known person. In this sense, it is perfectly logical to define a woman in the Middle Ages by the male closest to her. Women were not expected to be public figures, expect, perhaps for royalty and nobility, and the public face of the household was the husband and father. "That's Beth, Will's daughter. That's Joan, John's wife. That's Sairey, Robert's maid." When a woman married, her definition would logically change as the public figure closest to her went from being her father to her husband. As a tradition, it was not universal. In modern Hispanic countries, women never officially take their husband's name as their only surname, although they may be known by it socially. Cervantes mentions in Don Quixote that it was the tradition of Castille for women to use their husbands' names, leaving the reader to conclude that it was a custom peculiar to the region and/or time, since it had to be specifically explained. Of course, the good novelist does not say whether legal documents, such as a will or census, name the woman by her husband's name or her father's name. This much is logic: distinguishing name from a known or public figure. This became tradition. However, many things which were traditions have fallen by the wayside of society for various reasons, why not the renaming of women? It remains an extremely sensitive subject for a great many people in Western culture, particularly in the US, with extremists of both genders on both sides of the issue. These days it is easy enough to keep or change your surname in the US, being a woman or a man, and the only thing that really stops women from keeping and men from changing is the crushing weight of tradition, with a topper of fear of ridicule.
By extension, we might ask why a child is given the father's surname by default, whether the parents are married or not. When the parents are married, and the wife has taken the husband's name, there is no confusion at all. When there are two parental surnames, things can get tricky. It would seem like the most logical thing for the child to receive the surname of the primary care-giver, which would in the majority of cases be the mother.
A complex world requires complex tags. The surname is accepted as a necessity by almost all the world's population, but its forms may be reevaluated at any time as society evolves.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
names pt. 1
first draft
"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."
- William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
"Not if you called it a stinkweed."
- Bart Simpson, The Simpsons
The personal name is an important label. It gives us a sense of self, a direction, a mold to fit, shoes to fill, even expectations to fight against. A name given by others always carries with it their expectations for the receiver - parents naming a child; an owner naming a pet; friends or classmates assigning a nickname - and this can fill the named one with pride, hope, or horror. The personal name, in Western societies at least, is more flexible than the family name and can be used to show changing national or social alliances. The children of immigrants have often been given names common in their parents' adopted country rather than their homeland for this reason. In some cultures, a personal name has been a flexible thing, easily changed with the passing time and the development of the person through experience and maturity. Slate magazine, my favorite online news source, had this to say about the matter in current Chinese society. The author, Huan Hsu, mentions the fluidity of identity in China, something that is lacking in other countries: "people tend to view names and identities as absolute things," he writes. This seems to have been true for all of recent Western history. Even when a surname could change with relative ease, the first name was stuck to a person like a lamprey to a shark.
Many European countries have or have had stringent laws governing personal names. In many, it was not legally possible to change a name, once given. The flip side is that the law had a lot to say about giving the name in the first place, sometimes to a ridiculous extreme. In Catholic countries, the baptismal name was the name, and for many centuries the priest had the final say on a baby's label. A child might be automatically called officially by the name of the saint honored on the day of birth or baptism, no matter what the parents wanted to call the child. In Poland, a name day celebration was, at least at one time, more important than a birthday. Under the Franco regime, all children born in Spain had to have Spanish names, unless there was no possible Spanish equivalent. These naming laws have been softened in the last decades, but only a couple of years ago the Spanish Civil Registry refused to allow a couple, both born in Colombia, to name their daughter Beliza, saying that the name didn't exist. The parents argued that it was from a play by Lope de Vega (Lope de Vega, for the love of god), but in the play the name was spelled with an s, so the Spanish bureaucrats, in their ceaseless quest to serve the public, refused to allow a variation with z. The language must be protected somehow, you know.
By being careful about naming in the first place, a government may prevent some petitions for name changes in the future. In the United States, apparently, we prefer the "better to say you're sorry than to ask permission" system, whereby the parents have much more authority in the beginning, and the children more rights to change later. There are rumors and documentation of ... unfortunate names. Some seem to be jokes played on uneducated parents by wiseass doctors (Placenta, Chlamydia); some make an interesting combination with the surname (United States, Wanna Koke, E. Pluribus Ewbanks); and some are just odd all by themselves (Five-Eight, Pennsylvania and Erie Railroad, Whom-the-Lord-Preserved).
An unusual name has a definite effect on the psyche. As Christopher Andersen observed several decades ago in The Name Game, children with strange names likely have strange parents, and will grow up to be strange themselves. The oddly monikered may be pleasantly unusual or criminally weird, but they tend not to be "average". Speaking of criminals, there have been cases of such people who, when fleeing the law or their past, begin to use new names and really seem to become different people, at least on the surface. Of course, some are lawbreakers or assholes no matter what their names are. However, because the name is such a big part of the first impressions people make, a different name can easily provoke a different reaction from people one meets, and in turn different reactions from the newly-named.
When name changes are allowed, there are often still restrictions. One cannot name oneself after one's favorite brandname, product, or celebrity, in most cases. Unfortunately for the children involved, these restrictions might not be in place for the initial naming and this produces examples like Adolph Hitler Campbell. The father might have a point in saying that a name is just a name, not a destiny, but saddling his child with such a psychologically weighty title seems like a cowardly way to make his point. A person with full confidence in this belief would take the name himself. It may be, however, that this change was prohibited by law, while naming a child after an infamously angry Austrian is not.
Names go through cycles of popularity. Some rise and fall in numbers, while others become so tied to a particular time period that when they go, they enter a kind of onomastic limbo where they are known, but only as ghosts or musty old ideas from years gone by. Sources appear and lose their value, from legends, celebrities, family members, to random joinings of sounds. In some languages, a name still means something objectively, but in others, it only means what, or rather who, it can be connected to.
Many names of Black Americans seem to be the only ones that are absolutely without etymology and history. The reason for this could be related to cultural identification. A Black American may have little reason to identify or to even want to identify with mainstream (white) culture and its names; the family is many generations and centuries from its African roots and any family, tribal or cultural naming traditions have been utterly lost; instead of glomming onto somebody else's name culture, why not create their own?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)