Talk:List of family name affixes

The previous version said Mc>Irish and Mac>Scottish, this is urban legend of sorts. "Mc" is merely an abbreviated version of "Mac", and in both Irish and Scottish it is "Mac".--172.175.255.195 15:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorting of affixes from right to left is very important, and if it is broken it should be fixed rather than removed. The purpose of this list is finding an affix of a last name. Suppose that you have last name "Lupulescu". You don't know how long is the affix so you might try with "-cu", which is an average length of one. Nothing there. Then you try with "-scu". Nothing there as well. Then you finally find it with "-escu". But if the list is sorted RTL, you just search upon u, and find it instantly. Also, if the affixes are sorted LTR, related affixes would not be together. Nikola 14:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess you mean sort suffixes from the right (in reverse) and sort prefixes normally.--MarSch 17:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. But I see that someone "sorted" the suffixes from left to right too. Nikola 08:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I alphabetized the list. It makes sense to me that whatever you are looking for, it is easier if the list is alphabetized. Whether one is looking for "-u," "-cu," "-scu" or "-escu," people familiar with Roman script languages are going to be most comfortable with dictionary order. Grika 14:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right-to-left order is dictionary order for affixes. Nikola 15:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

typical affix?

This article currently states that it includes "typical affixes". I suppose that means this is not supposed to turn into an exhaustive list. But what _does_ it mean? --MarSch 17:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

affixes or affixen?

Wiktionary says the plural of affix is affixen. --MarSch 17:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Dutch. SigPig 10:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement needs

There are a number of issues with this list that need resolution:

Prefixes have meaning before nationality, suffixes are the opposite
Wiki MoS would have only the first instance of a language linked
Consistency is needed for the format of the meanings; italics versus "quotes"
Something is needed to make each line more understandable, possibilities:
1. bolding the affix
2. changing to a table
3. italicizing all meanings

Unless there are some suggestions, I will experiment with a few ideas and see what helps. Grika 15:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal names

Mikka, why adding personal names to the list? Nikola 07:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-ang suffix?!

The -ang is not a suffix (in Chinese nor Korean). It is merely a syllable rime, and not an attached meaning per se. There are many Chinese and Korean words with the ending -ang (surname or not), but they don't carry a common meaning or anything. I did add the word "Si" which *is* a prefix for some Chinese surnames. Chinese surnames with more than one character are rare but they do exist, and the word "Si" is used in at least 2 of these. There may be more but I don't know. -anonymous

O'?

The entry for "O'" is very incomplete, it doesn't mention any of the naming conventions associated with it in Irish. For instance the fact that it is only usually applied to Males, the female form being "Ni". The details are all in this article: Irish name. And BTW shouldn't it be properly spelled "Ó"? --Hibernian 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't so much "how to make a proper family name," but rather "how to identify the nationality of a family name." If you feel it would be helpful to the geneologist or whomever to have Ni- added, then by all means, please add it. Grika Ⓣ 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-a- Prefix?

I believe -a is a Frisian SUFFIX, not a prefix. The examples given (to which -sma and -da could be added) are all suffixes. I'm not familiar with any Fries names which *begin* with a- as a prefix. Laurie Fox 06:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-a Suffix of FAMILY names?

As family names or surnames are not generally (to my knowledge) either male or female, I believe this suffix is actually found in first or given names. If so, it doesn't really belong in this list. Laurie Fox 07:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many (most?) East-block languages have potential for differentiation between the surnames of male and female children. Russian and related languages will sometimes add -ova (or some equivalent) to female surnames when the male version looks like a noun and may just add an -a if the name looks like an adjective. There are many examples throughout Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech etc. Grika Ⓣ 18:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks, Grika!! I had no idea! Obviously my knowledge of East-block languages is woefully lacking... (Whew! I'm glad I put a couple disclaimers in my post, since it turns out I was TOTALLY wrong!) Thanks for contributing to my education! Laurie Fox 05:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

I notice that some prefixes are capitalized and others aren't. Some end in hyphen and others don't. Are these intended to be meaningful distinctions?

The reason I ask is that I'm looking for some guidance on how to capitalize names with prefixes (e.g., McDonald or Mcdonald). If you know of any reference sources, that would also be helpful.

Don Kirkby (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Sources

i don't have much spare time right now, but i happened to stumble upon this site recently: [http://everything2.com/e2node/Surname%2520Suffixes ] --160.75.90.27 (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ibn-"

Isn't "Ibn-" just a written form of "Bin-" which is always pronounced as "Bin-" in Arabic? СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-sson suffix (also not in Swedish?)

Hi, See my edit: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_family_name_affixes&diff=557700420&oldid=557699868

I know my Icelandic and suspect the same applies in Swedish, though not sure. It's difficult for me to explain (in English, I could try or look it up) the first s. There is a reason but it's not part of the suffix -son in Icelandic, which is required by law (or -dóttir for women (there are exceptions (family names) to both). You could almost say it's a suffix to what precedes the suffix, but kind of not. If you still want to insist it's a suffix because it's a common ending then that would also apply to -arson, -uson and some other endings in the same "category" as -son. comp.arch (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to add all these suffixes, as really the SUFFIXES are really -son and -dóttir in Icelandic. I readded Icelandic to -sson though as that is a very common "suffix". Hopefully my edits to -son, -sson and -dóttir are ok. I might add -uson and -udóttir for matronymic comp.arch (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The u is a feminine genitive ending, I presume? Do all Icelandic women's names have u in the genitive? —Tamfang (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generative? It's called possessive and they almost always ends like this. comp.arch (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genitive case. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

they're morphemes

Many of these exist as standalone names — e.g. Beck, Berg(en), Birch, Björn, Dahl, Holm, Koop, Lund, Bach, Baum, Brook, Dale, Dorf, Ford, Garth, Mann, Ridge, Schmidt, Stein, Stern, Wood, Wright — so what are they doing in a list of affixes, which by definition are bound morphemes?

If it includes these, the article ought perhaps to be renamed List of common family name elements. Rather than Prefixes and Suffixes, break down the affixes by function, e.g. patronymics, articles and particles (al, von), diminutives, adjectival suffixes (sky, wala). If the words listed above have a strong preference for appearing before or after another element, that can be indicated; but note that beck and berg now appear in both lists, and several Japanese words now appear in one and belong in both. —Tamfang (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mac etc

"Mac/Mhic/Mic- (Irish, Scottish and Manx Gaelic) "son," cognate of 'fitz'; (Mic' is plural; Mhic is genitive); Anglicised Mac, Mc, and (rarely) M; 'Mc' is sometimes written Mc (with a superscript 'c'). Contrary to popular belief, all three English forms of the prefix are used in English translations of Irish and Scottish surnames (e.g. Mac na Mhara > McNamara; Mac Aoidh > McKay)."

I added M' and Mc to the entry and deleted 'cognate of fitz' as it serves no valid purpose (the fitz entry doesn't say 'cognate of 'Mac'). Unable to understand what popular belief it's contrary to, I deleted "Contrary to popular belief, all three ... McKay)." (additionally, there are no 'three English forms' - maybe the writer was trying to distinguish how such would be written in Celtic versus Latin letters, and "English translations" of the surnames is of no relevance to the discussion.) Deleted the superfluous case references. Deleted the inaccurate "Anglicised"; they are 'verbalized' (in English Irish, and Scots) as they appear. Broadened the reference to superscripting to include 'Mac' and added that, in some names, 'Mc' is verbalized as if it were spelt 'Mac' (ex: McNamee > MacNamee) Irish Melkite (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard a belief that Mc is Irish and Mac is Scottish; can't say how common it is. — Mac and Fitz are analogous but certainly not cognates. —Tamfang (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese (and other) problems

I removed these entries in Japanese:

Naka –　中 (Japanese) "middle"^{[citation needed]}
-kawa, -gawa 川 (Japanese) "river"^{[citation needed]}
-to, -tō, -do, -dō 藤 (Japanese) "wisteria"^{[citation needed]}

These are not in any sense "affixes", they are merely (common) elements in personal names. But if we list them, we should list 100s (if not 1000s) of other common basic morphemes used in names... just as actually there are lots of other spurious ones, like vest, being "west" in Danish, berg, etc etc. If the list is to have any real meaning it should be restricted to elements with specific significance in names, I suggest. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cut a mess of mostly Germanic "suffixes" for the same reason. If a family takes its name from a village named Bickerton, or a wheelwright's son is known as John Wheelwright, the –ton or –wright does not thereby become a family name suffix. Similarly the –a of so many Romance feminine nouns, or the –us of so many Latin masculine nouns, does not become a family name suffix just because some of those nouns are family names. —Tamfang (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case insensitive list

Case is important in many of these: some are always lowercase; others change depending on context; others are always presented with initial capital; yet most (and not all!) are rendered with initial capital.--Rfsmit (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh prefix/presurnames and other errata

Feminines should be verch or ferch (depends on the era), not Fetch, Vetch, and in lower case.

Masculines (ab or ap, again depending on era) should be in the lower case as well.

Missing French d' for derived last names starting with a vowel sound (also for some Italian derived names also beginning with a vowel sound), versus de used for derived names beginning in a consonant sound.

As lightly mentioned before, most of these should be lowercase prefixes/presurnames.

For the 'cardinal direction' prefixes Z(Haupthimmelsrichtungen oder Kardinalpunkte) , If you are including 2 Germanics (Nord-/Norden- und Ost-/Osten-), may want to include West-/Westen- and Süd-/Süden-.

Collision Shift (offsite) 17 December 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.218.190 (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How this helped

None of this is bad, I just wanted to say that it was helpful. It helped me make characters with good last names. Thanks, that is all. 2601:204:E980:5260:D507:ED89:DBFF:1E92 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Affixes and Separable Affixes

A source of possible confusion is that strictly speaking affixes are part of the noun itself, while most or all of the examples given in the list are strictly speaking part of a noun phrase, or separable affixes. (Note: I give a Wiktionary link here because Separable affix links to Separable verb which does not treat of the affix, though the principle is indeed similar). Let me clarify this with an example: The Dutch prefix Ver- (in e.g. Verstappen) is a contraction of van der. The first is a true prefix, whereas the latter combination of two voorvoegsels (Dutch for prefixes) is a "separable prefix". I think this should be made clear in the lede of the article, if only to duck the wrath of linguists who actually know what we are talking about here. In this example I have incidentally shown what the difference is between a separable affix and a separable verb: the first is in the process of becoming a proper affix (through the process of contraction followed by bonding with the noun), while the second in contrast concerns a "detachable" part of the verb. But this is a digression. Another digression is that the van der prefix is ostensibly a combination of a preposition van, and a declension of the definite article de. But these grammatical particles have long since lost their original function (which was to show that someone was "from" a certain locality, like a local cemetery, as in Van de Kerkhof); they have "transitioned" to amorphous conjunctions. This subtlety eludes most people, unfortunately. For instance, the Nederlandse Taalunie in their important edict on capitalization of separable affixes in personal names, refers to the affixes as "prepositions" (so contributing to the confusion) Cf."Persoonsnamen". Woordenlijst.org (in Dutch). Nederlandse Taalunie. Retrieved 10 March 2023.. However this may be, the capitalization guidance in this "Rule 16.B" should not be overlooked, but unfortunately usually is, in Anglophone countries, leading to perennial spelling errors in Wikipedia articles like "van Leeuwenhoek", instead of "Van Leeuwenhoek", because ignorance about the exceptions disclosed in rule 16.B has led to the inference that Dutch surnames with separable affixes always start with a lowercase letter, because they start with a lowercase letter after a given name or initial (!). In other words, people take the exception for the rule. But again, this is a digression. My main point is that the lede of this article could stand a number of useful clarifications of important issues. Ereunetes (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may digress one more time: the examples show that the affixes are often relics of that lamented abandoned structure of the Dutch language, the system of grammatical cases. These fell victim to a drastic purging of Dutch orthography formalized in 1934, but only implemented after the Second World War. Before that Dutch had a case system similar to the German one. One may say that "below the surface" this system is still present, but it is no longer expressed in the spelling of words. Except in personal names, especially in personal names containing separable affixes. But hardly anybody still understands this system anymore (except indirectly, via the study of languages that retain a case system). Fortunately the Nederlandse Taalunie has a useful explanation about what is still relevant about cases on the website Taaladvies.net, for who may be interested. Cf. "Naamvallen (algemeen)". Taaladvies.net (in Dutch). Nederlandse Taalunie. Retrieved 10 March 2023.. The site is in Dutch, but for whom has the latest update of the browser Google Chrome, its Translate feature makes translation to English a cinch. Ereunetes (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I de-capitilized the Dutch prefixes, ignorant of rule 16.B, as I thought that was the actual rule. I do think it should be without capitalization here, as that is the most common use-case. However, it is clear that there are far more knowledgeable people about the subject ere, so I will leave it to you wether that is correct. 12Zebras (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ch

Ch - (Punjabi) "Chaudhary", a title of honour from the Punjab

Either I or the person who added this misunderstands something. It seems to say that if someone named Singh is appropriately honoured then he and his descendants are thenceforth named Ch-Singh (not Chaudhary Singh or Singh Chaudhary); which strikes me as implausible, but I don't know much about India, so I don't want to delete it too hastily. —Tamfang (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either but the Chowdhury article has this unsourced sentence: "In the Punjab, Chaudhary is used by several Punjabi tribes. It is typically used as a prefix before the given name, often represented by the prefix 'Ch'." DeCausa (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a thing. In this news item a tweet from Pakistani politician Fawad Chaudhry is pictured apparently using the Ch. DeCausa (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, I'm not convinced it belongs here any more than "Dr." —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea. DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]