What do you think of...

[clarentine]

Eponymic?

Does that say to you, reader, that the person whose name contains an eponymic is related, in some fashion other than blood, to the person whose name he bears?

To follow my earlier example: Abel Johnsha, where John stands in some guardian relationship to Abel other than parentage--does that work for you? If a character was to call infant Abel "Abel Paulson" and was corrected that the child was "Abel Johnsha," would you blink over the character noting the use of the eponymic as stating that John has taken guardianship or responsibility for the infant Abel?

(I still think it unlikely I'm the first person to need to label this relationship, and probably there's some anthro or linguistics major out there laughing at me. If you're laughing, tell me what the right word is!)

Comments

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I think what caused me to blink was that the -sha suffix isn't one I necessarily relate to parent-guardian relationship. So I saw "Paulson" and thought, that's a regular last name, and then saw your question about patronymic -- but those types of patronymic naming patterns aren't that common in English. That is, we may have Ericsson as a neighbor but Ericsson's father's name is Peter; the actual "Eric's son" was a great-grandfather who went through Ellis Island. For us, surnames are static, relatively. I guess that's why my brain saw "Paulson" and then "Johnsha" and assumed that the second example was someone else completely.

Would it work within your context to use titular system, instead? Like in the Arabic, where upon the first son's birth, a man is no longer known as, say, Frank, but as Joe's Dad: Abu Joe. Moms get a similar title-change, too. I'm not sure how you'd show that in the child's name, but if the child/guardee is with the new guardian, my understanding is that Paul would be just Paul, but John would now be known as Abu Abel.

There's also the Welsh (archaic) system where a name could contain both the patronymic and the fosterage names -- Abel ap Paul, of John -- I don't recall the exact pattern but it's a complex one that was intended to show both who bore you, and who raised you. Extended family ties all over the place. Though I suppose that could get confusing unless handled delicately...

You're not the first person I've ever seen ask about such relationships, but any cultural instance I've ever run up against, the new guardian taking on the 'role' of being parent is then called 'parent' -- not replacement or foster or guardian, simply parent. The only exception I can think of is the Welsh, and possibly Navajo, where family ties are embedded in the names and you never drop stuff, you just add more on, and on, and on.

[clarentine]

So what tripped you was the move from the familiar ("Paulson") to the unfamiliar ("Johnsha")? Maybe the familiar is what I need to change, to remove the set-up for expectations to go unmet.

As I recall, the Navajo are neither matrilineal nor patrilineal. Is that your understanding as well? If so, I need to learn more about their naming conventions, I suspect.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Uhm... there's a word for it, but as I recall the Navajo track both, and have ways to designate which one they're talking about. I don't know the precise wording but I think there's an order to it. Something like you're "from" your father's clan and "of" your mother's clan, and you list maternal first followed by paternal, something like that.

What tripped me was that I don't have a cultural automatic to expect a surname change when a child is fostered. If the child is adopted, I expect a surname change to match the new guardian/parent surname, but not in a patronymic sense. So it's a double-whammy, I think: I'm thrown by the patronymic element, and by the change itself in the absence of a stated specific, long-term, change in parenthood (as opposed to "taking in this child for a little while").

It also depends on the adoption situation, too. I've had several friends who were orphaned & raised by long-time family friends or by distant family, and all of them kept their original surname -- which is how the topic invariably came up: why is your name different? The adopted kids I've known took their adoptive parents' surname as part of becoming part of the family.

Hrm. Maybe if you hyphenated the surname pattern, just to offset the suffix so it's clearly an additive, or mutable to some degree?

[clarentine]

Uhm... there's a word for it, but as I recall the Navajo track both, and have ways to designate which one they're talking about.

::points and bounces::

There--that there is what I'm talking about, that word you don't have either.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Teknonymy is the practice of referring to parents by the names of their children. It is used in the Korean language as well as in the Arab world and West Africa.

From Iceland (which still uses patronymics): In cases where two people in the same social circle bear the same first name and the same father's name, they may be socially distinguished by their paternal grandfather's name. E.g. Jón Þórsson Bjarnarsonar (Jón, son of Þór, son of Bjarni) and Jón Þórsson Hallssonar (Jón, son of Þór, son of Hallur). In that case, it's another add-on, add-on, and if you just find a version of "foster" that makes you happy, maybe that would work -- plus your readers wouldn't have to struggle over "paul+son" but would see Abel Paulson becoming Abel Paulson Johnsha, and later maybe feel like they've scored an easter egg when they realize Dad's name is Paul and foster-Dad's name is John and go, hmmm, I bet that's one of them funky Scandinavian naming things!

Something to keep in mind about using patronymics or matronymics -- that surname is NOT a surname. I went back and forth over whether to specify that in the draft you read, since technically if the characters are using true patronymics, then, say, Ranulf Sorensson wouldn't be called Mr Sorensson, but simply Mr Ranulf. It's one thing to say, "Are you Joe's kid?" and another to be formally addressed as "child of Mr. Joe" which... just sounds wierd. Heh.

(meant to add: still looking for the info on Navajo naming systems, but I did find this and this, which may or may not be helpful. I'm not even sure what the second one really is, but I bookmarked it as a jumping-off place when trying to figure out naming conventions myself, as well.

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

I've done genealogy and name research for about 15 years now and I had to go look up Eponymic. I'd never heard of it. And the definitions I found don't fit what you're saying.

I think that you can stick on any thing you want to a name, but you're going to have a lot of readers wondering WTF? You're going to need to do a lot of explanation so that at least some of them get what you mean and are trying to do.

I also think you're making life too difficult for yourself. Make up some title or word, in English, that explains the relationship at a glance. Abel, heartkin of John, makes it clear that John has assumed responsibility for Abel. Abel, bloodkin of Paul, makes it clear that Paul is his natural father.

You can make up or use any system you choose, but I agree with the other commenter. Even in Sweden and other European nations where the patronymic naming system has been in place for centuries and centuries, it is falling out of use. The majority of people who don't even know the system exists won't get it. To them a surname is just a surname.

Good luck with this. *g*

[clarentine]

And the definitions I found don't fit what you're saying.

That's one thing I'm worried about - that I've got the meaning exactly backward. That, even if I get all the nuances right and the exposition just perfect and the word fits comfortably in the sentence, someone who knows what the hell it really means is going to see that and be booted out into the asteroid belt. *g*

grrrraugh!

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

The majority of people who don't even know the system exists won't get it. To them a surname is just a surname.

Ayup. I think that's a better way to put what I was trying to say: that I see "Paulson" as a distinct, en toto surname, and not as "paul's son". So it's doubly hard for me to see "Johnsha" as "John's sha," whatever 'sha' is. Maybe if 'sha' at least had some more English-sensical version? Like Johnfoster, perhaps?

Hrm, one idea, riffing off 'kin' (family) -- 'kith' is the equivalent for 'friend'... so instead of patronymic gender-based designations (-son, -dottir), perhaps Paulkin vs Johnkith? Just musing!

[clarentine]

Did you know that the previous book to the one I'm currently struggling with is entitled Kith and Kin? *g* Good musing.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

*doffs hat*

Check that out, I'm all telepathetic 'n stuff!

[inaurolillium.livejournal.com]

Well, eponymous means named for self, or sharing a name with self (like if a band is named Foo and their album is named Foo, that's an aponymous album), so no, if I saw eponymic, it would not make sense to me that that was a word for naming for a foster parent.

[clarentine]

Drat. As I suspected--I got it backward.

[eseme]

Kith and kin work.

Of course, both are gender neutral.

I woudl follow your example scene if earlier in the book it was made clear that the Paulson name was really a patriarchal name. Such as, we meet someone names Smithson and then meet his father, Smith. Then I think I could follow the example scene.