In article , Nick wrote:

I happen to know an Englishwoman with a 'double-barreled name', such as
'Elizabeth Jane Austen Bennett' (not her real name). Her family name is
'Austen Bennett' (without the hyphen). When she was in the United States,
most people there seemed unable to understand that naming convention.


Yes, to the American ear that type of double-barreled last name is marked as
exclusively upper-crusty British, the type of name that one only finds in
imported Classics professors, or one that American authors and scriptwriters
will assign to a character of the "harumphing" variety usually referred to
in Sherlockian (but not necessarily Holmesian) parlance as the "Boobus
Britannicus". You're perfectly correct to note that not one in a hundred
Americans would parse such a name correctly.


Should we be more, or less, annoyed at the CORUS organizers in that their
onomastic fumbling is not directed exclusively at Chinese names but appears
to exhibit greater diversity? What would Julio Granda Zuniga's opponent
today, Nakamura Hikaru, think of this? Oh...wait a minute, he's American,
not Japanese, so here the Dutch got it right.

Notwithstanding the fact that he represents the United States in international
chess, I thought that GM Nakamura (who was born in Japan) also still holds
Japanese citizenship, at least until he becomes regarded as an adult by
Japanese law, when he can decide for himself whether or not to keep it.

God help us if Japanese citizen and Expert Nakamura Ryuji ever ends up in
the same tournament as Hikaru Nakamura and insists on Japanese name-component
order. The NIC editors will never get it all sorted out.

That potential situation could be one of the reasons why Japan's Council
on National Language has considered requesting a universal observance of
the same Japanese naming convention. But what should happen if a Japanese
emigrant were to insist on conforming to the alternative naming convention
of his new homeland?


I suspect such a request by Japan's Council on National Language will be
cheerfully ignored by native speakers in, well, just about every language
where name components in local names do not already happen to conform
to the Japanese model. I expect that where sensitivity or political
correctness have dictated at least an attempt to accede to the non-native
Japanese component order, complete confusion of the sort that we find
nowadays with Chinese names such as "Z. Zhong" will be the inevitable result.


Regards,

--Kevin

Kevin Croxen wrote in
message ...
In article , Nick wrote:
Kevin Croxen wrote in
message ...
I wonder, if we begin to invert Japanese and Chinese names in
English-language publications as a regular practice,
in accordance with the usage in those languages,

'If'--you seem to be more of an optimist than a realist when it comes to
the probabilities that most English-language publications would voluntarily
respect those requests about the usage of all Chinese or Japanese names.

Perhaps "optimistic" (if that's the correct word here). But the romanization
reforms with respect to Chinese names that took place in the English-language
media in the late '70s (when e.g. Peking and Mao Tse Tung suddenly
metamorphosed into Beijing and Mao Zhe Dong)

Dear Mr. Croxen,

The change from the 'Wade-Giles' system to the 'Pinyin' system of romanization
of all Chinese characters (not only names) took place with respect to all
Chinese publications pertaining to the People's Republic of China, but not
those of Taiwan or Hong Kong (then a British territory).

Actually (to be factually accurate), 'Mao Tse-tung' became 'Mao Zedong'

compel me to believe that usage change with regard to the order of names
is at least possible.

My impression (though I am not certain) is that the general conversion by the
Anglophone media from Wade-Giles to Pinyin romanization was not a purely
voluntary expression of cross-cultural respect. Foreign news organisations
might well have been discreetly informed by the Chinese government that their
press credentials (which authorised them to report from China) could be
withheld if they did not comply with the new Chinese policy on romanization.

I'm less certain it's desirable, or whether native speakers in their own
country necessarily "ought" to be expected to adjust name usage based on
the source of a foreign name.

While I was living in Moscow for a while in the '70s, I found that ordinary
discourse just tended to run more smoothly once I elaborated my "patronymic"
and put it in use in the usual name-patronymic formula. The fact that
Americans have no patronymic as part of their legal name was not a fact I
expected ordinary people I was conversing with to know, nor would it have
occurred to me to expect my interlocutor to alter his naming and addressing
conventions in light of my American name that didn't quite fit into his
system. Official documents, of course, were quite another matter.

I also have found it helpful to adopt my patronymic when I have attempted to
communicate in Russian (I wish that I had your expertise) with some Russians.
Do you know how a Russian might acquire his or her patronymic if his or her
father's name is really unknown?

Do native Icelanders, who lack "last" names at all, take issue with the fact
that, when they go to other countries, they tend to be indexed according to
their patronymics under the misconception that these patronymics are in fact
family names, and are not indexed according to their given names as they are
in Iceland? Should we therefore cease inverting all names of Icelandic origin
in official documentation, to conform with Icelandic usage? What if the
fellow is of 3rd generation assimilated Icelandic stock, and the word ending
in -son (or conceivably -dottir) has become a family name? Should Fridrik
Olafsson and Helgi Olafsson have the expectation that their names be indexed
in the FIDE rating list under "F" and "H", the way they are, say, in an
Icelandic phone book, rather than under their indeterminative patronymics?
If Johann Hjartarson gets to play at CORUS B next year, shouldn't he be
listed as Johann H. rather than J. Hjartarson?

Should we expect the native speakers in any country necessarily to conform
to foreign use when assimilating the foreign names from any of dozens of
differing and possibly contradictory foreign naming conventions into their
own local languages? I think that would prove to be unreasonable and
unrealistic.

I don't regard myself as a 'linguistic purist', and I tend to be in favour of
a 'reasonable compromise' on most cross-cultural issues of potential confusion.

In the RGCM thread, 'Zhang Zhong at Corus', John Macnab has just mentioned
that the tournament's official website *again* (for the second consecutive
year) has referred to GM Zhang's name incorrectly as 'Z. Zhong'.

Now THAT much, I agree, is unacceptable editorial ignorance. "Z. Zhang",
for example, I would find to be acceptable assimilation with the family name
placed in final position, on the well-established Hungarian model of
"G. Maroczy". The confusion stems from Zhang Zhong's not acknowledging local
linguistic practice in foreign name assimilation. Acknowledging local native
speaker practice, he would have used his family name in final position, and
this nonsense with "Z. Zhong" would have been avoided.

I don't know (do you?) exactly what GM Zhang Zhong has or has not done with
regard to addressing the issues about confusing his family and his given names.
In the absence of that information, I should prefer not to place all the blame
prematurely on GM Zhang Zhong.

Much of last year's brouhaha stemmed from the idiotic CORUS B headline in
last year's coverage in NIC: "The Name is Zhong ...Zhang Zhong." And here,
really, Timman & Co.'s ignorance WAS inexcusable, particularly in light of
being editors and the joke being so poor ... but the western European
expectation is that the name be inverted with the family name in final
position. When this linguistic expectation is not met, confusion results. In
the A group at CORUS, Leko Peter might have sympathized. ("The Name is Peter
...Leko Peter." ...)

Given the evident cultural barrier of ignorance, indifference, indolence,
or sheer prejudice, I doubt that most Westerners will recognise and respect
Chinese or Japanese naming conventions any time soon.

We may try, haphazardly, but as I said before,
I'm not completely convinced we should.

I would submit that there's far from being universal 'good faith' in the West
with respect even to learning about Chinese and Japanese naming conventions.
I know some persons with traditional Chinese or Japanese names who had made
persistent efforts to explain their naming conventions to Westerners, yet who
now have abandoned their efforts after becoming discouraged by their lack of
successes.

whether we'll begin to do the same with Hungarian names, e.g. Acs Peter,
Polgar Judit, Maroczy Geza, etc., where the Western European usage has
been established in English for considerably longer than it has for East
Asian names.

If only 'money talks', then, given Hungary's economic insignificance
when compared to China or Japan, it would seem even less likely that
English-language publications could have a potential financial incentive
to observe the native usage of Hungarian names.

I mentioned that because, as far as I know, the study of the Chinese or the
Japanese languages often has been promoted in the West much as though it were
a visit to the dentist: as a utilitarian process of suffering that should be
endured (though hardly embraced) only because of the expected reward at the
end (such as a career in international business with China or Japan).

You may be right, but I suspect many, if not most publications couldn't give
a rat's patootie about the presumed economic significance of the reported
country in this decision.

Yes, I would concur that many Anglophone publications would assume an position
of general indifference toward the names of all those 'silly foreigners'.

I suspect the issue revolves more around the general cultural sensitivity
to foreigners en masse and to the particular national group at the time the
names are assimilated. If Hungary had been discovered only last year, I'm
sure we'd all be saying "Polgar Laszlo" now regardless of economic
insignificance. Likewise, I believe we'd still do so, haphazardly, if it
occurred to the Hungarians to object to the way their names are handled by
foreigners in the foreigners' own native languages.
It doesn't, and so we don't.

You may be interested in reading this recent history:
'The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat'
by Paul Lendvai (translated from the German by Ann Major)

Thanks very much for writing and mentioning many interesting points.

--Nick

Kevin Croxen wrote in
message ...
In article , Nick wrote:
I happen to know an Englishwoman with a 'double-barreled name', such as
'Elizabeth Jane Austen Bennett' (not her real name). Her family name is
'Austen Bennett' (without the hyphen). When she was in the United States,
most people there seemed unable to understand that naming convention.

Yes, to the American ear that type of double-barreled last name is marked as
exclusively upper-crusty British, the type of name that one only finds in
imported Classics professors, or one that American authors and scriptwriters
will assign to a character of the "harumphing" variety usually referred to
in Sherlockian (but not necessarily Holmesian) parlance as the "Boobus
Britannicus".

Dear Mr Croxen,

Notwithstanding any trans-Atlantic cultural stereotypes (in either direction),
I should have to say that 'Ms Austen Bennett' is not an Englishwoman, as I have
known her, who's too close to being what many Americans might presume that
she would be only on account of her family name.

You're perfectly correct to note that not one in a hundred Americans
would parse such a name correctly.

Actually, she complained to me that most Americans of her acquaintance seemed
to have significant difficulties in understanding her in some other ways too,
(though there was not anything that I could do to help her beyond expressing
my sympathies). In her case, of course, the continual misunderstandings about
her name evidently came from nothing more than cultural unfamiliarity.

(By the way, 'Elizabeth Bennet' is the heroine of Jane Austen's novel,
'Pride and Prejudice.')

(snipped)
God help us if Japanese citizen and Expert Nakamura Ryuji ever ends up
in the same tournament as Hikaru Nakamura and insists on Japanese
name-component order. The NIC editors will never get it all sorted out.

That potential situation could be one of the reasons why Japan's Council
on National Language has considered requesting a universal observance of
the same Japanese naming convention. But what should happen if a Japanese
emigrant were to insist on conforming to the alternative naming convention
of his new homeland?

I suspect such a request by Japan's Council on National Language will be
cheerfully ignored by native speakers in, well, just about every language
where name components in local names do not already happen to conform
to the Japanese model. I expect that where sensitivity or political
correctness have dictated at least an attempt to accede to the non-native
Japanese component order, complete confusion of the sort that we find
nowadays with Chinese names such as "Z. Zhong" will be the inevitable result.

You may be interested in knowing that some historians have contended that the
United States's decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima might have been
based in part on a mistaken translation from Japanese into English.

"Truman went to Potsdam (Conference) with the intention of holding the Russians
to their undertaking to declare war on Japan three months after the surrender
of Germany. The administration generally believed that this, not the
pie-in-the-sky (atomic) Bomb, was the last ace which would make even the
uniquely intransigent Japanese throw in their hand: the belated appearance
of their most dreaded enemy. When Stalin confirmed his intention to go ahead,
Truman was hugely relieved and knew that no American invasion of Japan was
likely to be needed. But when a full report of the Alamogordo test-firing
reached Potsdam, the Bomb was seen as a means of forcing a Japanese surrender
without the need for Soviet intervention. Truman, like any politician, had
kept his options--Russia or the Bomb to force a capitulation without invasion--
open as long as possible. The president's strong and deep-seated distrust of
Stalin, whose demands in exchange for intervention were set so high, decided
the issue for the Americans: the Bomb was to be dropped before the Russians
came in. Ironically, the evidence from Japan indicates that it was not the
Bomb, and certainly not the Bomb alone, but the Soviet declaration of war
immediately afterward that decided the issue for the Japanese.

The Potsdam Declaration by the Big Three on July 26, broadcast to Japan in
its own language and unloaded all over the landscape by American pamphlet-
bombers, promised 'prompt and utter destruction' unless Japan...surrendered
unconditionally....At a press conference on July 30,...prime minister Admiral
Suzuki, in line with palace and cabinet policy, which was to play for time
and hope for Soviet mediation, used an ambiguous turn of phrase of the kind
that makes his language a snare and a delusion for all but the most dedicated
foreign student. Apparently he meant, and thought he was saying, that the
(Japanese) government would not comment *yet*. The American translators read
this as meaning there would be no comment *at all*. Thus the 'wait-and-see'
approach was interpreted as a dismissal with contempt; and thus, the war,
which was partly rooted in verbal misunderstanding about 'sincerity' and
Japan's plans in Indochina, came to an unnecessarily apocalyptic climax partly
because of another misreading. *Seldom can a misconstrued adverbial nuance
have had such devastating consequences.*"

--Dan van der Vat (The Pacific Campaign, pp. 394-5)

The misunderstandings of language may have consequences both small and great.

--Nick