Re: Names

["John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>]

On Wed, 30 Aug 1995, Don Wiggins wrote:

> I have been wondering about the use of personal names in lojban and how they
> carry significant cultural baggage.
>
> Are surnames and first names recognised in lojban?
>
> Are there titles (such as Mr., Mrs., Dr., etc.) for use with surnames?  Or
 with
> first names (such as don <given name> in Spanish)?
>
> How does one identify the surname and given names when, for instance, in
> English the surname is at the end, in Chinese it is at the start, Spanish uses
> double surnames, Muslim uses given name and patronymic.
>
> What is the significance of calling a person by their given name rather than
> their surname?
>
Somebody wrote up a bit on this a long while ago, but wether on the list
or in JL or where I don't remember (maybe even back to TL times -- you
know how we geezers get).  A few points as I remember them:

1.  As in so many cultural things, Lojban follows local custom/relevant
preference. That is, the named gets to pick her/is Lojban handle -- full
and short forms.
2. _la_ is a species of _le_, so that in-mind restrictions and
frivolities apply -- private nicknames, say, or absent-minded handwavings
of the "old whatshisname" school.
3. The general principle for names seems to be smaller contrast first,
larger second.  So, Chinese with (traditionally) only 100 family names
but essentially an unbounded set of personal names, puts the family name
first.  Abrahamic cultures on the other hand have a relative small set of
personal names (in common use -- Athelstan is not even in the statistical
tail) but a virtually open-ended set of family names (locals, patronyms,
occupationals, made-ups,...) so we put the personal first and the family
second.  Lojban's preferred modifier-modified scheme works either way --
or neither, depending on how you look at it (and I used to be
Parks-Clifford, which led to another whole problem with that scheme)
pc>|83