Wow keeping your surname is so complicated with esperanto and culture :/

hey is there anyone who actually thinks esperanto will become the world language? I don't know what its like in europe but i know there is no way america would ever even touch esperanto if we can't even switch to the metric system

nw2394:Why is it normal for children to take their father's surname?

I didn't say it was normal, only that it was what westerners would expect.

I think I am correct in saying that in Iceland, boys are effectively called "John son of Peter" and girls are "Mary daughter of Amy". No actual surnames - but reference to the parent of the same gender.

No. Icelandic names reference the father. So the son is John son of Peter and the daughter is Mary daughter of Peter. It does happen on occasion that the mother's name is used for the girl (Mary daughter of Amy) but it is very rare, and it's often a political statement to do it - akin to someone in the US or Britain taking their mother's surname.

In Holland for example, people didn't have surnames back in history

Well it was exactly the same in England, of course. People didn't always have surnames, then at a certain point in history, they adopted surnames (though not at the point of a sword). That's how we ended up with these surnames based on someone's father's name (Johnson, Williamson) or based on profession (Miller, Baker), or based on geographical origin (Kent, Wood), etc.

But of course most surnames around the world are formed like this, so it isn't uncommon.

It is your heritage in the sense that now, most people have surnames, and except in isolated cases like Iceland, you can use these names to trace your family's movement. But of course, if this is silly and meaningless and unimportant to you, I welcome you to take your wife's name! It's amazing how many men say "My wife should just take my name, no big deal", then get all offended and aghast when you suggest they take their wife's name. Obviously if it were such a tiny issue, they would be willing to do it themselves, right?

Well, I didn't proclaim that - don't blame me - its just the way things tend to be. I actually asked my wife about this and she actively wanted to have the same surname as me.

It doesn't matter to me if she did or didn't want to have the same surname as you. What is important to me, is that she felt free to make her own decision, without being pressured by statements like "If you really loved me you'd..." or "Everyone else...", or "It's traditional to...". Did you ask her if she actively wanted to take your name, or did she only actively want to have the same name as you, period? I only think that these things should be treated on an equal basis. Just because in the past, women quit their jobs as soon as they got married or had kids, doesn't mean that this should happen today. And just because in the past, women in certain countries changed their surnames to their husband's name, doesn't mean that this should happen today. A woman should have the freedom to choose to quit her job or to take her husband's name, but she should be equally free not to quit her job and not to take her husband's name, and the husband (and society) shouldn't pressure her one way or the other. She should be completely free either way, and the husband should be supportive of her decision. That's what women's rights are all about - freedom of choice, without some jerkface man ordering you to do something just because it's "normal" or "traditional" or "just the way things are done".

Yeah, I can spell it ux. But that is clearly disapproved of. Why did Eo change from Uxato to Vato for Watt, if using Ux at the start of a word is considered OK?

Well, it is disapproved of for regular words. It doesn't really match usual Esperanto transliteration rules. But you can name yourself whatever you want, it doesn't really matter. It's your name, do what you want.

Although a final comment on this - it is rare to transliterate your surname. Very few people 'esperantize' their surnames. For example, the famous Esperanto writer Julio Baghy; his real name was Gyula, not Julio. He esperantized his personal name, not his surname. So he is known to us in Esperanto as Julio Baghy, though his correct name in Hungarian (with the surname first) is Baghy Gyula. In contrast, we refer to Kalocsay Kálmán exclusively with his usual Hungarian name, in its usual Hungarian order (surname first)

nw2394:Why did Eo change from Uxato to Vato for Watt, if using Ux at the start of a word is considered OK?

An ŭ at the start of a word is *not* considered OK, as I have hinted at in my previous message. However if your goal is to clarify the pronunciation of your family name, and your family name begins with a sound whose esperanto counterpart is ŭ, then by all means use ŭ. You are not forming a word, you are helping other people understand the spelling.

As for your question, Z evidently didn't like the idea of an ŭ by itself or straight after a consonant. Perhaps this is due to the influence of the languages he knew. I don't know the exact reason, and I never really needed it.

As for the family name overtaking matter, frankly I don't care either way. My family name is not a heritage, it's someone else's name that was transplanted to me at birth. I didn't decide it, and therefore it's only partly mine. I am just used to it. The only heritage I can think of is genetic, and it is much more accurate, since it reflects both my parents, and not only my father.

Of course, I acknowledge the fact that it makes sense to have a name that connects you to the family you are in, for practical purposes. For the same exact reason, when you go on and start a new family on your own, the logical choice would be to assume a new name, perhaps alongside the one you already have to clarify that it is a different family. This new name can be agreed upon by the members of the new family, and it can be used along with their own. I think this solution is both fair and practical. If it is really so important to have a common family name in your new family (and perhaps in some circumstances it might really be), then I refuse to think that a couple that has agreed to live under the same roof, cannot agree on an unique label for that very roof.

Generation 1: Joseph Donald Smith marries Susan Mary Jones. They have a child.
In the interest of honoring both sides equally, they plan to give the child a hyphenated last name. Also in the interest of fairness, they plan to put the mother's last name before the hyphen if they have a girl or the father's last name before the hyphen if they have a son.

They have a brilliant daughter and name her Alexandra Sofia Jones-Smith.

Alexandra gets a scholarship to Yale and goes off to study molecular biology. While there, she meets a sensitive man and falls in love. The lucky fellow is named Sidney Martin Bloom-Watson (his parents were also of an egalitarian bent).

Generation 2: Alexandra and Sidney marry and have a child. Neither Alex nor Sid wish to do any of their parents the dishonor of dropping a name, so the tyke is logically named Henry David Bloom-Watson-Jones-Smith.

Generation 3: Similar events happen and result in the birth and naming of

Maria Estella Blondell-Saffron-Rosenberg-Watt-Bloom-Watson-Jones-Smith

Yes, it's unwieldy, but it's fair, dang it!

erinja:If she is like most American women.

She's Canadian.

Frakseno:Maria Estella Blondell-Saffron-Rosenberg-Watt-Bloom-Watson-Jones-Smith

As it happens, I am not a fan of hyphenating names.

In my opinion, the fairest thing is for daughters to get the mother's surname and sons to get the father's surname, and for everyone to keep their own names upon marriage. That is a fair way to run things, yet still avoids name pile-ups like what you describe.

I understand that, in much of the Spanish speaking world, people take both the name of their father and of their mother. (To their children, they pass only the name that comes from their father).

It seems the tradition could be borrowed and adapted, so that a person has two last names: the one that comes from his/her maternal line, and the one from his/her paternal line. Women give their children their maternal name, and men give them the paternal name.

Children of gay couples would simply have two maternal, or two paternal names.

The only problem, of course, would be the grandchildren of gay couples, who, hypothetically, could end up with no last name at all...

Say Amy Chang and Allison Shepard have a son. His name is Oliver Chang Shepard.

David Gold and his partner, Seamus McDonald, raise a wonderful daughter, Grace Gold McDonald. (E I E I O)

Oliver and Grace have a child, Owen. And Owen, having no paternal grandfather, and no maternal grandmother, is left with no last name.

Owen's cousin, Sue, however, ends up with the unwieldy name "Sue Chang Shepard Gold McDonald."

So I realize now my solution is imperfect.

Honestly, I hardly think that sexism is an issue for gay or lesbian couples naming their kids. It's hardly as if one will be pressuring the other to submit to some sexist tradition, like a husband who pressure his wife to take his name. I'm sure they could decide on one of their names, or else go back to the nearest relative of the "right" gender to choose a name. Or come up with a new name, I know some people have done that. I met a lesbian couple, I forget their exact names but it was something like Meyer and Jankowitz, and they became Meyerowitz, and they both changed their names to that, and also their kids got that name. Don't remember if the kids were girls or boys (maybe one of each?) but in this case it didn't really matter since they merged their names.

I forget their exact names but it was something like Meyer and Jankowitz, and they became Meyerowitz, and they both changed their names to that, and also their kids got that name.

Antonio Villaraigosa (the mayor of LA) did the same thing. He was born Antonio Villar, married someone whose last name was Raigosa, and they both changed their names to "Villaraigosa".

I don't think the practice will ever become widespread though. Many pairs of last names just don't lend themselves to such mash-ups.

trojo:Many pairs of last names just don't lend themselves to such mash-ups.

I dunno, I think in most cases you could come up with something, with a little creativity. It doesn't always have to be like Rosen + Bloom = Rosenbloom. You could have Chang + Mohammed, and make that Chamed (or something).