Post History
In Icelandic, you are, I suppose, more likely to refer to a single person and their family, than to the family without naming any single person as well. Random example from the web: "Fjölskylda Ei...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Jirka Hanika
·
2023-06-14T12:16:37Z (over 1 year ago)
Adding more context on second given names and on middle names and correcting the base form of name I used in an example
In Icelandic, you are, I suppose, more likely to refer to a single person _and their family_, than to the family without naming any single person as well. Random example from the web: "Fjölskylda Einars Darra Óskarssonar heimsótti mig í forsætisráðuneytið í dag." ("The family of Einar Darr, son of Óskar, visited me in the office today.")- Those "last names" of Icelandic aren't family names at all. So it doesn't matter that they differ within the family; the first names differ, too. Those "last names" are generally patronymics, i.e., names derived from the given name of one's father.
Imagine a male person with a given name A. A's son with a given name B would be called "B, A's son"[^1], while A's daughter with a given name X would be called "X, A's daughter". The difference between a patronymic and a family name becomes apparent in the next generation. Imagine that B has a son who is given name C. Now, C's full name will be "C, B's son".Finally, imagine A, B, X and C holding an extended family council. They don't use a family name, and there's no single name of any kind that would be present in everybody's full name. Will that detail stop you from calling that congregation of people "A's family" (**"fjölskylda A"**)? No, it won't stop you, like the fact that X's (or even B's) counterpart in another Western culture might already be married and bear a family name different from the one they were born with into A's family.- Having family names in place isn't required for references to families to be possible.
[^1]: There is no comma between a given name and the patronymic in Icelandic. I'm explaining using English which has no proper patronymics, so I opted for the comma in my equivalents.
- In Icelandic, you are, I suppose, more likely to refer to a single person _and their family_, than to the family without naming any single person as well. Random example from the web: "Fjölskylda Einars Darra Óskarssonar heimsótti mig í forsætisráðuneytið í dag." ("The family of Einar Darri[^1], son of Óskar, visited me in the office today.")
- Those "last names" of Icelandic aren't family names at all. So it doesn't matter that they differ within the family; the first names differ, too. Those "last names" are generally patronymics, i.e., names derived from the given name of one's father.
- Imagine a male person with a given name A. A's son with a given name B would be called "B, A's son"[^2], while A's daughter with a given name X would be called "X, A's daughter". The difference between a patronymic and a family name becomes apparent in the next generation. Imagine that B has a son who is given name C. Now, C's full name will be "C, B's son".
- Finally, imagine A, B, X and C holding an extended family council. They don't use a family name, and there's no single name of any kind that would be present in everybody's full name. Will that detail stop you from calling that congregation of people "A's family" (**"fjölskylda A"**)? No, it won't stop you, like the fact that X's (or even B's) counterpart in another Western culture might already be married[^3] and bear a family name different from the one they were born with into A's family, will not stop you either.
- Having family names in place isn't required for references to families to be possible.
- [^1]: "Darri" is a second given name. It is neither a middle name, a family name, nor a patronymic.
- [^2]: There is no comma between a given name and the patronymic in Icelandic. I'm explaining using English which has no proper patronymics, so I opted for the comma in my equivalents.
- [^3]: If an Icelander X living in Iceland marries a Dutchman D with a Dutch family name F, (i.e., "X, A's daughter" marries "D. F.") and wants to take her husband's family name, the legally sanctioned custom is to make F her new middle name. She would therefore be called "X F, A's daughter" thereafter; she would still have no family name.
#1: Initial revision
by
Jirka Hanika
·
2023-06-14T11:53:59Z (over 1 year ago)
In Icelandic, you are, I suppose, more likely to refer to a single person _and their family_, than to the family without naming any single person as well. Random example from the web: "Fjölskylda Einars Darra Óskarssonar heimsótti mig í forsætisráðuneytið í dag." ("The family of Einar Darr, son of Óskar, visited me in the office today.")
Those "last names" of Icelandic aren't family names at all. So it doesn't matter that they differ within the family; the first names differ, too. Those "last names" are generally patronymics, i.e., names derived from the given name of one's father.
Imagine a male person with a given name A. A's son with a given name B would be called "B, A's son"[^1], while A's daughter with a given name X would be called "X, A's daughter". The difference between a patronymic and a family name becomes apparent in the next generation. Imagine that B has a son who is given name C. Now, C's full name will be "C, B's son".
Finally, imagine A, B, X and C holding an extended family council. They don't use a family name, and there's no single name of any kind that would be present in everybody's full name. Will that detail stop you from calling that congregation of people "A's family" (**"fjölskylda A"**)? No, it won't stop you, like the fact that X's (or even B's) counterpart in another Western culture might already be married and bear a family name different from the one they were born with into A's family.
Having family names in place isn't required for references to families to be possible.
[^1]: There is no comma between a given name and the patronymic in Icelandic. I'm explaining using English which has no proper patronymics, so I opted for the comma in my equivalents.