This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Surnames by country was split to Surname on 11 June 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Surnames by country. |
On 11 June 2016 Wbm1058 moved page Family name to Surnames by country without leaving a redirect: See Talk:Surnames by country#Merge to surname ... content was split from an article titled "Family name", changing the scope of that article from "Family names" to "Surnames by country" |
If surname does not always (or usually) refer to a family name, what should be the content of this article? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is this page not connected with family name or last name? (Yes, I do the the topic above; however, my question was not answered.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorchah (talk • contribs) 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is distinct from family name because it's about all last names, not just the last names that are family names. Several hundred years ago, members of the same family could very well have been James [the] Cooper and Anne [the] Baxter, based on their professions rather than their family. Even today, some people have a last name that is not based on what family they belong to, e.g. Angelina Jolie or Elton John. Ariadne55 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Felix, you cannot give options to users about what you will do to a page. IF you want to redirect the page, a consensus MUST be reached. If you cannot reach a conensus, then the redirect will not happen. Undeath (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
While the article definitely needs work, and the concept of surname is closely intertwined with "family name" in most western cultures, there are some very real and important differences between a surname and a family name, both in minority western cultures and in non-western cultures. Besides possibly being a family name, a surname may also be a patronymic or matronymic, or something else. For example, for a time in Norway, many surnames were two names, the combination of a patronymic or matronymic and a "farm name", the place where they lived, and which would change if they moved. However, most historical Norwegian figures were upper-class people who were of families that adopted the "family name" convention relatively early. There are also current cultures where the surname may change and is not based on a family name; for example, in India, it is not uncommon in some sub-groups for a person to change their surname to reflect their occupation; see Rajesh Pilot. Studerby (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
````142.161.57.40 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Theoretiaclly, are there becoming fewer days as time passes? Lots of couples marry every day, and in certain countries the wife takes the husband's surname as hers. Is this theoretically correct? Will there be fewer used surnames in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown One (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 6#Category:Jewish surnames. Badagnani (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Place it in Family name? or in Surname? or in Matrilineality?
This new section is dependent upon a DNA presentation. DNA is already presented in Matrilineality, but would need to be added in Family name or in Surname. So I placed the new section in the Matrilineality article.
Also, I think adding Matrilineal surnames within Family name would muddy the latter's clear-flowing waters. Keeping Family name a purely patrilineal article would be less confusing for readers. For7thGen (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Usually articles seem to be overly focused on a view point of someone living in the United States... however this article seems to focus on every culture but American and/or English. Also I don't understand why this isn't just part of the Family name article Fjf1085 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
At one point in this section it's talking about Uralic name order, then it disconcertingly launches into a diatribe on Sami name changes without an appropriate lead-in. It reads very copy and paste. As I myself don't know enough about the subject matter and the only citation is a unrelated blog post in Norwegian, I would suggest that if the Sami section isn't rewritten, the paragraph should be deleted. Philip72 (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Is that external link to [2] really meritorious? If the page was linking to such material, there are a number of better sources. This would be better as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.191.207 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The section on Hebrew patronymic surnames could usefully be expanded to clarify whether the similar constructions in other Semitic languages (Aramaic bar-, Arabic ibn- and bin-) are also used as surnames, or only as true patronyms. AmirOnWiki (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Just count the number of occurrences of "family name" in the surname article and vice-versa. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, some modification of [[last name] will no doubt be in order after the merger has been completed. Another problem that will need to be addressed is the second dictionary sense of "surname," i.e. something between a nickname and a (needed) epithet. The textbook example used by Merriam-Webster is "da Vinci" and we can add "of Arabia" and "Barbarossa" or "Redbeard" and "the Great" and "the Conqueror" to this list. I was taught in school (in the United States) that "surname" applied in these cases and was a sort of nickname but called "surname" precisely to distinguish it from the "family name," which might be, say, Hohenstaufen. The intro to the new article should make some allowance for this. Initially it might link to byname.
I added a link to the article on Naming Law. (This is in addition to the link to Surname Law which exists already.) The Naming Law article presently discusses mostly rules about what given names may be used in different countries, but some of its content may relate to surnames as well (e.g. bans on diacritical remarks in California, regulations about characters that may be used in a name). Moreover, the Naming Law article itself should probably be expanded to reflect general rules for names that apply to both given names and surnames, especially since many parents in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) choose to name their child with a surname that is a combination or (and different from) the surname of either parent. [As a separate point, the articles on Naming Law and Surname Law should refer to each other and perhaps should be merged, especially since the current article on Naming Law has almost no content. I will add notes to those articles.]--WvomSaal (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"A surname or family name is a name added to a given name. In many cases, a surname is a family name and many dictionaries define "surname" as a synonym of "family name"." How I read this: 1. SN (=FN)= N added to GN. 2. Often SN = FN, & many dictionaries say SN = FN. Seems weird to me because in 1, SN=FN but then in 2, SN OFTEN = FN. 64.53.191.77 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I was confused by the same thing. It should be fixed by now, but I am a little unsure about the correct way to go about it—striking the second sentence seems to lose a somewhat important nuance. Thomas Tvileren (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
"Derived from a nickname"? I would call this "derived from a characteristic [of an ancestor]." 2001:470:D:468:5C0F:D2D:F26B:5913 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any sources for this right now but in Austria the surname is very rarely placed before the given name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.163.62 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Family name Surname — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.217.2 (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So as I look at these two articles, which I haven't studied before, I see a lot of content, and a full merge doesn't seem practical. Some form of summary style restructuring is needed here, I think. Taking a look at the history, to see how we got to this point:
Family name is the older of the two. Its history dates back to the beginning of Wikipedia. September 15, 2001 – when it was edited by Larry Sanger himself. Surname was created as a redirect to family name on August 15, 2002. A content fork at that title wasn't started until December 11, 2007. At the time, family name was a well-developed article. Family name became "a type of surname". To see what other types of surnames there might be, look at the new surname article, which was labeled as a disambiguation page, though it didn't look like one. The ((disambiguation)) tag was removed after just ten days ("This is clearly not a disambiguation page; it may not be more than a dicdef").
To make this early version of the surname page conform to MOS:DAB, it should read:
Surname may refer to:
References
With the ((disambiguation)) tag removed; from that followed a request to ((expand)) the article from its "dictionary-definition-stub status".
The "epithet" meaning and the link to nickname were removed with this 18 April 2008 edit, essentially removing the raison d'être for creating this "dab-fork". It seems to me:
Family name, often referred to as a last name, was "a type of surname" until this 18 December 2011 edit changed it to "often referred to as a surname or 'last name'". wbm1058 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
References
These will need some reconciliation, as there isn't a totally straightforward overlap between these. It's possible that different name etymologists (who?) will devise slightly differing classifications. Some names might fall in multiple classifications.
Getting back to the idea that a family name is "a type of surname", and there are "many surnames that are not family names
".
Right, John (the) Carpenter is an unmarried orphan with no relatives, and none of his genetic ancestors were ever carpenters. So the name is not a "family name", that is, until John does get married, and has a son who grows up to be a rocket scientist. Then the occupational name Carpenter has been transformed into a mere family name. As this can happen to any name, there is no such thing as a surname that is not a (potential) family name. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. One of the cited sources, per the book summary on Amazon, says there are four broad classes of surnames: first-names, localities, occupations, nicknames – that is, classes of English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish surnames in the United Kingdom, the British Commonwealth and the United States. wbm1058 (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
And the TOC of other cited source indicates that surnames may be grouped into several more less broadly-construed categories.
Its preview on Amazon indicates that surnames predate family names. Initially, when John (the) Carpenter died, his surname died with him. His son might have been named Paul (the) Cooper. It was at some later point that surnames became family names – when Cooper's son inherited the name, even if he didn't take up the profession. So, essentially, in modern usage sur- and family-name are equivalent, unless someone can cite a society somewhere in the world where they aren't. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Surname classifications contributed by this 14 October 2009 edit. I was saddened when I looked at their user page. wbm1058 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
See Patronymic surname. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, List of people who adopted matronymic surnames. Shouldn't that be List of people who adopted matrilineal surnames? wbm1058 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The 14:59, 24 August 2011 version said:
In Japan and Hong Kong (China), when people of Japanese or Hong Kong Chinese origin, respectively, write their personal name in the Latin alphabet, it is common to reverse the order of the given and family names for the convenience of Westerners. Hungarians do the same when interacting with other Europeans. Reversing the order of names[citation needed] is also somewhat common in Estonian and Finnish, which are Uralic languages like Hungarian.
This 16:29, 25 August 2011 edit, rationale: "I removed {Citation needed}: just go to Finland, Estonia or even Karelia and read or listen to the people... Edited, completed about the Finns, I'll do more about that (later)", changed the text to:
In Japan and Hong Kong (China), when people of Japanese or Hong Kong Chinese origin, respectively, write their personal name in the Latin alphabet, it is common to reverse the order of the given and family names for the convenience of Westerners. Hungarians do the same when interacting with other Europeans. Reversing the order of names is also customary for the Baltic Fennic peoples and the [1] and the Hungarians — as it was the norm until recently, when integration into the EU and accelerated international exchanges pushed many people to reverse the order of their full name to given name - surname, so that they are not called Ms. Rauha (a first name), just like Japanese, some Koreans, Chinese or some Vietnamese do, for the same reason.
References
The next editor, with the edit summary: "ugh... i hope someone else can make sense of it.... i did the best i could!", changed it to:
In Japan and Hong Kong (China), when people of Japanese or Hong Kong Chinese origin, respectively, write their personal name in the Latin alphabet, it is common to reverse the order of the given and family names for the convenience of Westerners. Hungarians do the same when interacting with other Europeans. Reversing the order of names is also customary for the Baltic Fennic peoples and the Hungarians, but other Uralic peoples didn't need surnames, because of the clanic structure of their societies. Surnames have been imposed by the dominant authorities: evangelists, then administrations. Thus, the Samis saw no change or a transformation of their name, for example: some Sire became Siri, [1] Hætta Jáhkoš Ásslat became Aslak Jacobsen Hætta — as it was the norm until recently, when integration into the EU and accelerated international exchanges pushed many people to reverse the order of their full name to given name - surname, so that they are not called Ms. Rauha (a first name), just like Japanese, some Koreans, Chinese or some Vietnamese do, for the same reason.
The current version:
When those from Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong write their personal name in the Latin alphabet, it is common to reverse the order of the given and family names for the convenience of Westerners, so that they know which name is the family name for official/formal purposes. Reversing the order of names for the same reason is also customary for the Baltic Fennic peoples and the Hungarians, but other Uralic peoples traditionally did not have surnames, perhaps because of the clan structure of their societies. Surnames have been imposed by the dominant authorities:[citation needed] evangelists, then administrations. Thus, the Samis saw no change or a transformation of their name. For example: some Sire became Siri,[1] Hætta Jáhkoš Ásslat became Aslak Jacobsen Hætta — as was the norm. Recently, integration into the EU and increased communications with foreigners prompted many Samis to reverse the order of their full name to given name followed by surname, to avoid their given name being mistaken for and used as a surname.
I'm still having trouble parsing this. It seems like too much detail for this level. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Surname. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Zapatero or Lorca, for example, are mentioned by their second surname without saying their first name. “Federico Lorca” or “José Luis Zapatero” wouldn’t be used. Ibn Gabirol (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
"The meanings of some names are unknown or unclear. The most common European name in this category may be the Irish name Ryan, which means 'little king' in Irish Gaelic.[31][34] Also, Celtic origin of the name Arthur, meaning 'bear'" This needs to be clarified. It says some names' meanings are unknown then proceeds to give examples of such names and what they mean ?? Venqax (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Ayers is a company of organic farming setup in 1934 Murthy412 (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This section of the article a) has little citations and b) only includes a few subjectively-chosen ethnic groups. I assume this section of the article was created to list surnames of non-dominant ethnic groups who don't have their common surnames under "Common Surnames of [insert country/continent here] articles or sections. But, I think this section should either be: split up and moved to other articles (e.g. move Tibetan surnames under China, and Assyrian to Asia/Middle East), created into its own article, or just deleted.
Mrpants106 (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I put a lot of hours into cleaning this article up, and then this joker 64.110.241.161 comes along and triggers an earthquake @15:54, 4 January 2019.
Was that vandal reverted?? No, their edit was endorsed @06:28, 28 February 2019! Sigh, wbm1058 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
An editor insists of the usage of the term "technonymic surname" instead of "occupational surname" as section title. I find it dubious that "Cook" or "Fisher" may be called technonyms. In any case, this usage must be extremely rare and cannot be used as tht main term in wikipedia, since Google search does not give valid references (the term is used in other meanings, it particular commonly as a typo for "teknonym", see eg [3]).
The editor provides the reference " Cottle, Basil. Penguin Dictionary of Surnames. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1967" Please provide the exact citation from this book, since it is not visible. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, please do not change redirects until the disagreement is resolved. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Inside the compound section, should we add info about Quebec compound surnames (Canadian name) ? Bohemien100 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)