Conference thebay::joyoflex

    Who says we have to have two or more names?  Everybody gets a unique
    Social Security number anyway!  If everyone is simply given one
    name, parentage information can be obtained from application forms,
    admittance forms, etc. if it is necessary.
    
    If two people with the same name turn up in a group (school, work,
    etc.) simply append a few digits from their S.S. No. until uniqueness
    is obtained.
    
    (;^))

    Re .1:
    
    I don't think it is true that everybody gets a unique Social Security
    number.  Something to that effect may have been mentioned in the
    Washington Post in the late 70's.  I wrote a letter to a Social
    Security office asking them about it, but they never answered.  Also,
    there are only a billion possible numbers, and our population is nearly
    a quarter of that.  Add to that a turnover in population of about a
    seventieth every year for all the years since Social Security started,
    and the assignment of numbers should be quite crowded.  Since parts of
    the Social Security number depend on things like the office which
    assigned the number, it is almost certain (or certain to happen
    shortly) that some offices have had to assign duplicate numbers. 
    
    
    Re .0:
    
    Give children the name which is first in alphabetical order.  Not
    only does this solve the decision problem, but after not too many
    generations, the problem will go away altogether because everybody
    will have the same last name.
    
    
    				-- edp

    My wife, Irma Sheppard, and me, Karl Moeller, have designed two
    possible names for our possible offspring :
    
            Shepler     ---       Moellard (ick)
    

re .2

You mean someone out there might have my social security number?  My 
anti-matter man/woman!  Ye Gods!

    My wife, Irma Sheppard, and me, Karl Moeller, have designed two
    possible names for our possible offspring :

	Ick, Karl, you should have said:
    My wife, Irma Sheppard, and I, Karl Moeller, have designed two
                                - 
	since you were the subject of the sentence!  :-)
    
    Seriously, though, folks, this is an interesting digression.  We
    are used to Anglophile conventions (Father's surname), but other
    societies do have differences.  The common Spanish-speaking convention
    is to have father-and-mother surnames; i.e.,
    	Fidel Castro y Ruiz
    since his mother was Ruiz, and his father was Castro.  Only the
    father's name passes down, though; otherwise it would get endlessly
    long (as with the hyphen case in .0).  Note that the "Jr." form
    doesn't work here.  Hence Nicaragua's first American dynast, Anastasio
    Somoza y Garcia, fathered Anastasio Somoza y Debayle.  (The Anglophonic
    press usually omits the "y" ("and") from the names.)

    Icelanders use patronymics (I believe surnames are illegal there!).
    Hence President Bogdansdottir (sp.?).  This is also done in Hebrew,
    though I think Israelis generally use western-style surnames.
                                           
    I don't think name-passing exists at all among some Asian groups;
    they just give a name they like.  Ditto for Native Americans in
    many cases, before becoming anglicized.  Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden
    named their son Troy Garrity, because they liked the name, and Garrity
    was one of Tom's ancestral names.

    My wife, Irma Sheppard, is a former English and French teacher who
    has been attempting to wean me from overuse of the 'and I'. She
    terms its reflexive use a 'hyperurbanization'. I never COULD get
    all that subject/object stuff right, so now, instead of 'and I',
    I reflexively use 'and ME'. Who says we get inflexible as we grow
    older ???

      Oh, wow!  'Hyperurbanization'.   I've been looking for that
      word for years!  You and she have made my day.
      
      Dave C.            

Re: SSN's

	I think you'll find that every *living* person in the US who has 
a social security number has a unique one.   A number is recycled after 
the person holding it has died and there are no dependants drawing 
benefits from it.  There have been cases of people having the same SSN 
or people who have two, but those cases are errors in the system.

						>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .8:
    
    I'll write to the Social Security people again (by certified mail
    and mentioning the Freedom of Information Act, to ensure they'll
    answer this time), and then we'll know for sure.
    
    
    				-- edp

Why not be less confrontational and call on the phone?  I don't think 
they're trying to hide anything.
					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .10:
    
    0)	Getting in touch with somebody who really knows for sure is
    	likely to be difficult.  I'd rather have them pass a letter
    	along instead of doing the work myself.
    
    1)	I'd almost certainly have to call long distance to get anybody
    	who really knows, which would be much more expensive than even
    	a certified letter.
    
    2)	I would not have a written response for skeptics.
    
    
    				-- edp

Re .-1-. eR


-2   Gosh...

-1   Didn't meant to...

 0   cause any

 1   grief

 2   My backyard doesn't have skeptic tank, anyway.


Actually, I'd rather have Social-Life Security Number.  Much more 
worthwhile.

    1. I have *heard* that the least significant digit in the SSN
    is a checksum digit, which would limit their numbers rather
    significantly.
    
    2. Corporations have "Federal Employer I.D. Numbers", which
    take the form:  nnn-nn-nnnn.
    
    I think we're going to run out of SSN's RSN.
    
    						-- Ann B.

    re .13:  Nope, there's no check digit.  I know this since my brother,
    my 2 sisters and I have consecutive SSN's (we all got them at the
    same time)
    
    Actually, the corp Fed. ID # is of the form nn-nnnnnnn to distinguish
    it from an individual's SSN, but I don't know if they are unique
    from SSN's.
    
    -Mike

    I think the last digit of an ISBN is a check digit.

    Re .15
    Yes, the last digit of an ISBN is a check digit. The 10-digit ISBN
    usually has its digits divided into four groups. The first group
    is a code for the country or language, the second group indicates
    the publisher and the third group is a number assigned by the publisher
    to the book. The fourth group (well, group...) is the check digit.
    I was told this formed some kind of eleven-code (?) but do not
    understand the algorithm.

    I don't remember the exact algorithm for calculating the ISBN check
    character, but it is DEFINITELY some sort of Modulo-11 (Modulus?)
    
    That's why some books' ISBNs end in the letter X (which, not being
    a digit, implies that the final character is merely a check 
    Character)

re: running out of SSNs soon

	We could make SSNs SSANs (alphanumeric "numbers").  With 26 extra
	characters the permutations (or commutations?) would keep us going
	for quite a while longer.


re: what's in a name?

	Being female it does bother me that children that MY body will 
	incubate and deliver get the name of someone that doesn't have
	too much to do with the birth process.   I'm sure there are or 
	have been matriarchal civilizations where lineage is traced through
	the mother (I believe Judaism is traced through the mother, but
	that's not the same thing as the surname).  It's up to people to
	decide what they want and what they're willing to give.  This 
	is similar to the discussion on women changing their names upon
	marriage.  What works for me (and to a lesser extent, my spouse)
	is keeping my birth surname, allowing the children to have his
	last name, and I pick their first names.  I wouldn't pick a first
	name that my spouse absolutely hated, but I will pick names that
	are meaningful to me, that reflect my heritage (Italian) and my
	family.  I will probably give my children middle names that 
	are either my birth surname or my mother's birth surname.

	There is so much room to be creative - do what works for you.
	We don't need one set of rules.  I recognize that people (read
	that: most men) *might* disagree with the different last name
	for mommy than the kids.  My spouse raised that question.  He
	said, "How will the kids know who their mother is?". (is that
	punctuation correct?)  I had to laugh at that one.  My kids
	will know who their mother is - I'll be the one who raises them,
	nurtures them, teaches them, watches out for them and loves them.
	(eww, that got a bit 'cutesy' at the end.)

	--Angela

	>Being female it does bother me that children that MY body will 
	>incubate and deliver get the name of someone that doesn't have
	>too much to do with the birth process.
    
    The birth process is glorified because it is an important event and
    only happens once per person.  May I assure you, the eating process
    is equally important, sheltering comes a close second, and education
    and some other processes are close thirds.  If you wish to be offended
    when your name isn't included among those names that your children
    receive, perhaps you should move to a Spanish-speaking country where
    it will be.  Or you can stay in some countries where hyphenated names
    are accepted (though in order to prevent long strings from getting
    out of hand, some ancestors will have to be offended some day).  Or
    you can stay in some countries where it is possible to assign only
    the mother's surname to the children, although then the father might
    be bothered if he has to make the other contributions.  Even in Japan,
    about 1% of the time the husband takes the wife's surname (legally),
    and there are some couples who refuse to obey the law on adopting a
    single surname (resulting in their children being branded illegitimate
    by the law, etc.).
    
	>I'm sure there are or 
	>have been matriarchal civilizations where lineage is traced through
	>the mother (I believe Judaism is traced through the mother, but
	>that's not the same thing as the surname).
    
    There have been.  Most (if not all) preceded the invention of surnames.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    
    >The birth process is glorified because it is an important event and
    >only happens once per person. 
    
    My mother, who bore four children, would have been very surprised to
    learn this. 
    
    JP

When I was about to get married (to a woman whose surname was more interesting
than mine) I mooted the idea of changing my name to hers by Deed Poll before
the ceremony, so that when she took `my' name she'd end up with hers anyway.
Paradoxically, it was my mother's reaction that persuaded me not to: she
would have wanted me to keep the name that she'd assumed when she married
my father.

In the event, my wife took my surname <yawn> and our first-born got her
surname as a middle name. Our second-born wasn't so lucky though - attachment
to the maiden-name had worn off by then.

b

I was thinking about how the word `chauvinist' has come to be widely used
with the `strident/ardent/fanatical believer in male supremacy' meaning
(as opposed to its older and more general sense of `strident/ardent/fanatical
believer in anything') and I thought that maybe the word `jingoist' has done
the same sort of thing. Last dictionary I looked in (may have been OED, but
don't quote me, quite possibly the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 2nd edn�),
the word was based on the Kipling poem that has a strident/ardent/fanatical
believer in his country saying something like`we don't want to fight, but by
jingo if we do...'; hence `jingoist'. But the same character might just as well
have said `By jingo, I expect my tea on the table at 5.30'; then he'd have been
a male jingoist.

b
�The edition number is important. The 3rd and 4th editions are nothing like
the 2nd, and I know that Kipling verse isn't in the 3rd (leastways it
shouldn't have been if the editorial team I was working with at the time had
stuck to their guidelines).

    It's a nit, but the word you (.18) should be using is "matrilineal".
    There have been many matrilineal cultures in this world, but, oddly
    enough, no one has ever found a matriarchy.  (From time to time,
    some anthropologists think they have, but further study (such as with
    the !Kung) have shown them to be wrong.)
    
    							Ann B.

    There has never been a matriarchical society?  Really?
    
    					andrew

.18>	Being female it does bother me that children that MY body will 
.18>	incubate and deliver get the name of someone that doesn't have
.18>	too much to do with the birth process.

Being male, that would bother me, too.  My wife is due in another month, and we
plan to give our child the surname of two people who both will have a great
deal to do with the birth process.

    Re .20
    
    ND>> The birth process is glorified because it is an important event and
    ND>> only happens once per person. 
    
    JP> My mother, who bore four children, would have been very surprised to
    JP> learn this. 
    
    Yup.  In that case you should ask the doctor or midspouse how many
    children s/he delivered too.
    
    Somehow the number of births divided by the number of persons still
    works out to a ratio of 1, while the number of equally important events
    of eating divided by the number of persons works out to a much higher
    ratio, thus the latter lack glory and some feel that the providers'
    surnames should be given short shrift.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    
    It is a rare treat to watch someone put foot in mouth and then shoot
    himself in the foot.
    
    JP

    Have there ever been societies where women had equal (or greater) power
    than men?
    					andrew

    The usual answer is "Yes, the Iroquois".  But you'd have to define
    your terms ("equal" and "power") to get a good answer.
    
    Thus:
    
    o	Women own more property than men do in the US (due to longer
    	lives).  Is this equal or greater power?
    
    o	I believe more votes are cast by woman than men in the US.  Is
    	this equal or greater power?
    
    o	When Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth II were both in
    	power, was that power?
    
    o	The Iroquois had different governmental roles for women and men.
    	If the roles are different, is this equal or greater power?  
    
    There have been societies in which women were the sexual aggressors,
    in which women have been the typical "breadwinners", and in which women
    have had significant political power.  But while there are many
    societies run by men, with little political or economic role for women,
    there's no record of any society run the other way.
    
    		-John Bishop

    Back to naming...
    
    There was a book called ``The Void Captain's Tale'' by Norman Spinrad
    (which I suppose could qualify as erotic science fiction, but that's
    not the point) in which each character had three names.  The first name
    was chosen by the person to whom the name belonged, presumably as part
    of some ceremony marking their transition to adulthood.  Their second
    name was their father's chosen name, and their third name was their
    mother's chosen name (or I may have those two reversed).
    
    When a person introduced themselves, it was (usually?) by telling a
    ``name tale'', in which they told who their parents were (all three
    names) and where their (the parents) first names came from, as well as
    telling in more depth how the person telling the story had chosen a
    first name.  There was one character in the book who had chosen all
    three of his names, and he was considered sort of an oddball.
    
    Not that it has anything to do with the current state of things, but I
    thought it was another interesting permutation of how you get called
    what you want to get called.
    
    Idle thoughts,
    
    Roy

    Speaking of idle thoughts, I do not think that there is a problem in
    this space any more, because of computers. My children have my wife's
    maiden (last) name as their second "middle" name, and my last name as
    their last name (i.e. four names in all). The traditional argument
    against this system is that one eventually ends up with "too many"
    names. However, if one accepts that computers are not likely to go
    away (barring a recurrence of the dark ages, which actually seems
    fairly likely at this point), then there is not really a problem
    because one's family tree can be encoded in one's name to an
    arbitrary degree of detail.
    
    Doug.

    Re .32
    
    It won't work until there come into use databases with space for more
    than 15 characters of surname...
    
    There is also the problem that some religious faiths bestow names on
    adherents at particular times; for example, Catholics choose a
    confirmation name.  Some of them use it thereafter as a meaningful part
    of their full names.
    
    I have long advocated that couples hyphenate upon marriage and then
    give to each daughter the mother's surname and to each son the
    father's.  As generations proceeded, women would bear surnames more and
    more closely related to their mothers' lineage while men bore names
    related to their fathers'.  This seems to me an ideal compromise
    because it loses neither side of the family tree (unless, of course,
    there are children of only one sex).  It is at least less
    discriminatory than any other scheme I can think of.

	Howzabout

$ SET SURNAME/GENERATE

exzuazroa     ex-zu-az-roa
kaihoazaza    kai-hoa-za-za
cupiatcha     cu-pi-at-cha
wavifattma    wa-vi-fatt-ma
eafisazsla    ea-fi-saz-sla

Choose a surname from this list, or press RETURN to get a new list

re .23:
Yes Ann, matrilineal is a better word .  That never
occured to me - thanks!

-ag