In the grand scheme of human language, surnames do not have a long history. Their use is sporadic and ill-defined throughout the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations – and typically they indicate clan membership, as opposed to an unique lineal relationship, especially among the aristocracy – but by the 5th century, the use of family names had been abandoned. The beginning of their use in English is traced to the Norman invasion of the 11th century, with common usage coming centuries later. In other places, the use of surnames is a new phenomena: Netherlands (1811), Japan (1870s), Thailand (1920), and Turkey (1934). In some places they don’t exist at all, including Iceland.
The current mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, adopted a new surname combining his original surname with that of his spouse’s.
In any case, my hope for the past year or so, was that a logical method for choosing a last name would present itself. Alas, I’m starting to suspect that J will go into labour and we still will not have decided.
J and I did discuss some interesting last names, each with their own particular rationale (for instance, J and I were engaged to be married in Banff):
- Banff
- Blairmore
- Exley
- Kelsey
- Leapark
- Snow, Snowdon/Snowden
- Vaughn
- West
But as the carefree days come to an end, J and I are gripped by the likelihood of giving our newborn the last name of Mowat or Hutchinson, and not something more…creative.
At the moment, the Hutchinson clan and the Mowat clan are in the same boat: no further sons to carry the last name on into the future, beyond the current generation: ie, myself and my brother-in-law Kyle. That really doesn’t mean as much to me as it once maybe did. Nevertheless, it is a small consideration to make, I suppose.
There are, I fear, even tougher decisions on the horizon.
Last night, J and I found ourselves in a discussion about last names. We didn’t have a problem coming up with some awesome and agreeable first names. We’ll both be happy with quite a few different ones. But we’ve struggled with the last name.
When J and I were married, I was fairly adamant that she retain her last name. I felt it was an important symbol of the type of marriage I expected.
But it has caused a bit of an issue about what last name our kids(s) should have.
One of the key points is that all of us – parents and kid(s) – should have the same last name. Which means that at least one person will need to change their last name.
I think for me this means a legal name change, but retaining the use of our current last names publicly. When we go to the airport with our passports, they all have the same last name, but we’d still get mail and such in our original last names. I suppose this might be confusing, but I see it as kinda like having an alias. Or being an actor with a stage name. Which is kinda fun.
I don’t think J is sold on that idea.
But the main point is what would that new last name be.
There are five main methods for giving a child its last name:
- Use the father’s last name;
- Use the mother’s last name;
- Use a hyphenated version of the father’s and mother’s last name;
- Sons will get the father’s last name and daughters will get the mother’s last name (or 1st kid gets father’s/mother’s last name, 2nd kid gets the other’s); and,
- A completely new last name will be created (using, or not using, elements of the parents’ last names).
Recently J has said that the fourth idea might have merit.
All along I have been advocating for the last idea: a completely new last name – the problem remains, however, just what would that last name be?
I’d be curious to find out everyone’s opinions on this issue.
An article from the Saskatoon StarPhoenix breaks down the numbers and names of babies born in Saskatchewan in 2009.
The 14,465 births in Saskatchewan in 2009 were the most in the province since 1992, when families welcomed 14,992 new babies. There were 492 more babies born in Saskatchewan in 2009 than in 2008.
I’d say there are some surprising names in the mix. For instance the 17th most popular girls’ name: Nevaeh. And there’s still a good mix of classic names (Alexander, William, Elizabeth, Sarah). And I’d some are following recent trends, such as Lily, and Logan. But all of the names are pretty nice, actually. But we won’t be using any of them.
Here’s StarPhoenix reporter Janet French wrestling with the name game.
Here are the top-20 names for each gender, followed by the number of babies given that name:
Male (Female)
1. Ethan 93 (1. Emma 82)
2. Liam 77 (2. Ava 69)
3. Carter 72 (3. Olivia 66)
4. Jacob 65 (4. Emily 65)
5. Aiden 63 (5. Brooklyn 54)
6. Logan 62 (6. Chloe 52)
7. Hunter 55 (7. Madison 48)
8. Ryder 54 (8. Alexis 46)
9. Noah 53 (9. Hailey 44)
10. Owen 51 (10. Hannah 42)
11. Lucas 51 (11. Ella 41)
12. Benjamin 48 (12. Grace 40)
13. Matthew 44 (13. Lily 40)
14. William 43 (14. Elizabeth 38)
15. Joshua 43 (15. Addison 38)
16. Alexander 42 (16. Taylor 38)
17. Mason 41 (17. Nevaeh 36)
18. Carson 40 (18. Avery 35)
19. Jayden 40 (19. Abigail 33)
20. James 39 (20. Sarah 33)
My awesome business card!
When I sleep I see words. Big words. Little words. Entire phrases like: “total shareholder return is the amount investors receive in capital gains and dividends.” Or even whole one-sentence paragraphs: “the material risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking information and statements contained herein and the material risk factors or assumptions that were used to develop them include, without limitation: our assumptions regarding production levels, sales volumes…” (That makes perfect, if long-winded, sense by the way). And last night I was even editing and recomposing the sentences I was speaking as I was speaking (which is not, by the way, effective communication, just ask J).
I started my new job at Creative Fire two weeks ago. This is a particularly busy time of year, with multiple annual reports nearing their deadlines and a myriad of other projects somehow occurring simultaneously. It is a bit mysterious in an awe inspiring sort of way. And I’ve jumped right into the thick of things. It has been awhile since my composition and correction skills have been so thoroughly exercised, and I feel a bit like I’m drinking from a fire hose, but I’m thrilled to be a part of it. Oh, and it hasn’t been all net earnings and disclaimers (that’s just the fun stuff!), there is a somewhat surprising range of production going on that draws on the breadth of my writing skills.
My Desk - I'm a Mac!
It is a vibrant place. Plus, the coffee is fantastic: it comes from a Starbucks machine that grinds fresh beans, brews, and pours right before your eyes (I didn’t get a picture of our machine, but it looks like this). And yesterday a great lunch from Souleio was provided for all the staff.
And while I’ve been adding to the overall effort where I can, I’m also learning the ropes. For instance, I’m back to working on a Mac for the first time in eight years. That’s not a huge issue, since it is pretty intuitive if you know even a little about Macs. I’m actually enjoying the Magic Mouse quite a bit (Apple creates great products with a quasi-futuristic feel to them). I’ve also been given access to Lynda.com – one of the things that I felt I might miss from the U of S.
Anyway, these are just little extras – but for me they matter, and I’m immensely enjoying them.
And I think it works. I mean, I think it helps the staff feel engaged, appreciated, and creative. I know I feel like my brain is on fire. I mean that in a good way!
This evening, J & I watched the documentary The Business of Being Born. I read a little about the movie at wikipedia before we started it: “The film criticizes the American health care system with its emphasis on drugs and costly interventions and its view of childbirth as a medical emergency rather than a natural occurrence.”
“Are you okay with that?” she asked. She knows I’m not very granola.
I said: “Yes. I’m already there.”
“You’re already there?” she questioned.
“Yes. You know that I don’t think babies should be born in hospitals.” Which is true – I’ve said it many times before. I’ve expressed a preference for some sort of birth centre – which, to my knowledge, doesn’t exist in Saskatchewan (but there’s one in Calgary, apparently, and one to open in Winnipeg).
But I could understand her reluctance to believe me. It was not all that long ago that I knew very little about pregnancies or, frankly, much else about female physiology generally (my specialty has been on the fun parts!). And I also had a preference for pain killers and anesthetic. Somehow things have changed.
In other ways my evolution makes perfect sense. I’m just enough of a contrarian and a libertarian that I’d rather not have doctors tell me what to do. Plus I’m a historian and I happen to know that billions of births have taken place outside of hospitals without complications.
Now it’s easy enough for me to have whatever opinion I’d like. I’m not the one giving birth. And besides, J and I haven’t really considered home birth, nor are we using a midwife. We’ve only really just started to feel educated about this whole pregnancy-thing. And midwifery in Saskatchewan is relatively new (Saskatchewan regulated midwifery on March 14, 2008 ).
We are planning on having a doula.
But I really think that if we have a second pregnancy we’ll seriously consider a home birth.
The movie was quite good. Quite even-handed. And there’s a helluva ending.
And now: the machine that goes PING!
