Roleplaying Video Games Entertainment & Media Politics & World
General Spirituality & Philosophy Worldbuilding Creative Forum
The Sports Center Science, Math, & Technology The Nostalgia Forum Sexuality
Community feedback needed: add_comment New add_comment New request

Worldbuilding

Names names names...

Posted Over 12 Years ago by Lyndon

[unparsed]How are people named in your conworld?
Are they named after what they do? Who their family are?

Basically, are their names:
[list:059f3dad94]based on their family name (if so where'd the original name come from)
chosen by their parents/guardians/whoever
chosen by themselves (perhaps at a coming of age ceremony)
awarded/earned by those around them
or anything else[/list:u:059f3dad94]

For example in RL most people are named after their parents (surname) and also have a name chosen by them (forename).

(I haven't posted in quite a while so forgive me if this seems like an odd question)

There are 22 Replies


[unparsed]My conworld is an infinite multiverse. There are a lot of different naming conventions in there.

For Example:

Néjadish names (at least from the current era of the most prominent incarnation of Néjadish culture) are formed with Clan name first, Patronym/Matronym next, then a class/caste/job-related name, then one or more personal names.

Over 12 Years ago
jseamus
 

[unparsed]
[quote="Lyndon"]
How are people named in your conworld?
Are they named after what they do? Who their family are?

Basically, are their names:
[list]
based on their family name (if so where'd the original name come from)
chosen by their parents/guardians/whoever
chosen by themselves (perhaps at a coming of age ceremony)
awarded/earned by those around them
or anything else
[/list]

For example in RL most people are named after their parents (surname) and also have a name chosen by them (forename).

I'm pretty sure I've posted about this before.
In Adpihi all of those are used; an Adpihi might have fifteen names, though for the most part only four are used most of the time.

based on their family name

There are three "family names"; the patriline name, the matriline name, and the "rope" name. Everyone has the same patriline name as their father; everyone has the same matriline name as their mother; and everyone has the same "rope" name as the parent of the opposite sex.

(if so where'd the original name come from)

I don't think anyone honestly knows, though several people have ideas.

chosen by their parents/guardians/whoever

At birth/baptism/christening every child is given a name by each godparent. The name a boy's father's mother gives him, or the name a girl's mother's father gives her, are the ones they mostly "go by" until they come of age.
Not all of this is completely free; one of the "forenames" a boy is given is that of the closest deceased male relative of one of his parents that he doesn't already have an older brother named for; similarly, one of the "forenames" a girl is given is that of the closest deceased female relative of one of her parents that she doesn't already have an older sister named for.
For brothers, the relative in question rotates among relatives of their grandparents as follows;
father's father or his closest deceased male relative
mother's father or his closest deceased male relative
father's mother's closest deceased male relative
mother's mother's closest deceased male relative
repeat as often as necessary.

For sisters, the relative in question rotates among relatives of their grandparents as follows;
mother's mother or her closest deceased female relative
father's mother or her closest deceased female relative
mother's father's closest deceased female relative
father's father's closest deceased female relative
repeat as often as necessary.

(Since people seldom have more than six or seven children, and it's rare that they'd all be sons or all be daughters, the tradition goes out to about nine names for each sex; after which people get sort of vague.)

If you know an individual's family names, her/his parents' family names, and her/his grandparents' family names, you can take a good guess about what generation of each of his/her families s/he belongs to. But just in case, each family has a cycle of four to eleven "fore"names that they rotate among.

If you know his/her forenames, and those of his parents and of their parents and siblings, you can generally take a good guess where s/he is in the birth-order of his/her siblings. But just in case one of their "fore"names actually says something like "couple's first son, couple's second child, father's second son, father's third child, mother's first son, mother's third child" or whatever the combination is.


chosen by themselves (perhaps at a coming of age ceremony)
awarded/earned by those around them

These tend to be sort of the same thing. A person may also acquire a new name at marriage, and/or at the birth of his/her first child, and/or at the death of one or both of his/her parents and/or (one of) his/her spouse(s), and or upon entering a profession (including joining a laborunion or taking religious orders or joining a military service), and/or successfully completing a long and hard course of study (such as getting a master's or doctorate or postdoc or habilitationsschrift, or a baccelaureate or some other "graduation"), or getting a knighthood or a title of nobility, etc.

They also have a "fore"name that tells something about the time they were born; say, what year in the 57-year cycle, and/or what month in the 705-month cycle.

Certain legal documents, such as marriage licenses, birth certificates, wills, and deeds, require a person's full name. That shows which patrilines, matrilines, and "ropes" s/he, his/her parents, and his/her grandparents belong to; what generation of each of his/her patriline, matriline, and "rope" s/he belongs to; where s/he fit in the birth-order; his/her birthdate; where s/he was born; his/her profession; his/her degrees, titles, etc.; and a whole bunch of "forenames".

Usually, though, just one of those, plus the name of his/her patriline, matriline, and "rope", are enough to distinguish him/her for most purposes, there usually not being anyone with the same combination who is anywhere near as likely to be meant instead. In fact, in some circumstances just one, or in some two, or in some three, are often sufficient.

Over 12 Years ago
chiarizio
 

[unparsed]I don't have much that's really polished beyond these two.

Cerelians:
[quote:0ceda2d894="Unpolished Design Notes"]First names rage from two syllables for males, to three syllables for females, typically with sharp syllabic transitions, female names almost exclusively ending in vowels and male names exclusively in consonents. Surnames tend to be terse, one or two syllable sounds that rely on multiple blended consonents and few vowels. Surnames also bear one or more prefixes dictated by the branch of society where the individual is assigned to work upon birth. This is intended to remind each citizen born in Cerelios that their duty to their nation comes before even family, and that it is an intrinsic part of who they were meant to be.
Common Female Names: Alifa, Desiri, Fenaghi, Hilara, Jessara, Mareha, Peyara, Rashifa, Sinafi, Taleja
Common Male Names: Amir, Bilal, Gelel, Heshan, Jafryte, Markul, Phelir, Ramxis, Reshid, Zahim
Prefixes: abd- (executives), alu- (military), il- (maintenance), jafd- (public service), mat- (entertainers), phe- (overseers), rabd- (machine operators)
Common Surnames: Abdur, Chezur, Farphim, Jessud, Jikram, Kapham, Maphrum, Razhul, Tehlur, Zehid[/quote:0ceda2d894]

Xandrenians:
[quote:0ceda2d894="Unpolished Design Notes"]Xandrenian names are composed of two names, a first name, which the individual is most commonly known by, and a clan name, which designates which Childkeeper home they were raised in. Females tend to be given names that are breathy and soft, with syllables that roll together rather than stand distinct. Males are given simple names with distinct divisions that often seem more like guttural sounds that could be uttered at any time. The clan name is always that of the family of Childkeeper, of which there are fifteen on the island, and signifies only where they were born and raised. Clan names are composed of an initial letter or sound, denoting the city, followed by the surname of the fey. Of the fifteen clans, D'sirloth, Q'lethel, and V'suul are the most prestigious, renowned for their exceptional results.
Clan Names: A'morl, A'suudi, A'zreth (Jarthul); D'morl, D'sirloth, D'zareth (Xandren City); Q'lethel, Q'narath, Q'garem (Ferlorel); Th'ilmar, Th'lyar, Th'trooth (Cummatra); V'narmeth, V'suul, V'zhan (Enthame)[/quote:0ceda2d894]

The Kaelonir have around sixty surnames, including about a dozen or so dead names, as their surnames are given based on which Blade Spirit they inherit. The dead names belonged to Blade Spirits that have either disappeared or been intentionally destroyed for crimes against their own people (the bad thing about inherited, multifaceted spirits is that most of their facets tend to be the same).

But other than those, nothing too special or noteworthy at the moment.

Over 12 Years ago
Tharivious
 

[unparsed]Malolectan Human cultures tend to have a given name (by their parents) and a surname (usually their fathers, sometimes their mothers), and maybe a patronym/matronym, depending on culture. Some have no surname, just a patronym.
Goman men have a given name, a patronym, and their fathers surname. Goman women have a given name and their fathers surname.
In contrast, amongst Niocacci peoples, they have a given name and a patronym, and when they come of age they take on a chosen name of their own.

Mytarican Human cultures have more complex naming conventions. While it is similar to Malolectan conventions in northern Mytarican, it gets progressively more different as you go further south. A popular convention is that your parents combine the syllables of their names to create yours, followed by a matronym. This derived name can be accompanied by a given name, surname, and/or chosen name, depending on your tribe, nationality or culture.

Atnir have a given name, which is derived from some significant event or object that is witnessed/found by the newborn's carers within the first six days of their birth. For example, the carer of a newborn Atnir might see a one legged eagle; the newborn would be called [i:b16d5a01e4]Ej Vorat Maros[/i:b16d5a01e4]; One Leg Eagle; and would be nicknamed [i:b16d5a01e4]Maros[/i:b16d5a01e4], Eagle.
At the age of twelve they would choose their adult name, perhaps in a similar fashion as their given name, perhaps after a character of legend, or just something made up; it could be anything.

Over 12 Years ago
Avjunza
 

[unparsed]The Mokuri go Russian style, except instead of the middle name being that of their father, it is that of their clan chief, their family's oldest living male member to which all male members of the family are related. Then they have a clan name that could be any one of their dead ancestors, and this tends to vary depending on who they talk to because it is a measure of their status. Two Mokuri, when talking to each other formally, will use the name of the ancestor who was a sibling of the other Mokuri's ancestor. Once they establish this, one Mokuri usually has to use the appropriate honorific language to address the other. Within an extended family, everyone just uses personal names.

Over 12 Years ago
Cerne
 

[unparsed]
Do your concultures have a limited set of anthroponyms (proper names for people)?

At one time the modern Chinese government limited personal individual names to a set of 32768 (32^3 or 8^5) names.

My Adpihi and Reptigan concultures have seven types of anthroponyms.
They give every person five names.
Three are “family names”; the name of their matriline (the same as their mother’s), the name of their patriline (the same as their father’s), and the name of their rope (the same as their parent of the opposite sex).
Two are individual personal names. Sons get their first individual name from their father and their second individual name from their mother; daughters get their first individual name from their mother and their second individual name from their father.
So the seven kinds of anthroponyms are:
  • matriline names;
  • patriline names;
  • rope names;
  • feminine first individual names;
  • masculine first individual names;
  • feminine second individual names; and
  • masculine second individual names.

    Currently I’ve allowed only 143 (12^2 -1) names of each type; that’s a total of 7*143 = 1001 names. There are fewer than 3 million possible combinations of family names. For each sex, there are over 20,000 possible combinations of first individual name and second individual name. All told there are almost 60 thousand million possible full names for each sex.

    What if I made it 4681 names of each type?
    They would add up to 7*4681 = 32,767 names.
    There’d be over 102 thousand million possible combinations of the three family names; almost 22 million combinations of first individual name and second individual name for each sex; and about 2.25 million million million possible “full names” for each sex. My thinking is, 102 thousand million could do for a large interstellar society with over a dozen populous planets. (And maybe forty or fifty less populous ones).
    OTOH two-and-a-quarter quintillion is bigger than the “quadrillions” of Asimov’s Galactic Empire and Foundation universe. More by a long shot than the minimum population Hari Seldon said were needed to make psychohistory at all a reliable science.

    How about your concultures? Do they have limited pools of anthroponyms? Are the limits small or large?

  • Over 2 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed][quote:bc3307c18b="chiarizio"]How about your concultures? Do they have limited pools of anthroponyms? Are the limits small or large?[/quote:bc3307c18b]

    Haven't come across any with legal limitations. Some folks may have cultural norms or desire to use popular names, though, but nothing especially limiting.

    Over 2 Years ago
    elemtilas
     

    [unparsed]
    I have modifications to make to the Adpihi/Reptigan system for individual personal names.

    The purpose of naming your children after your great grandparents, your grandaunts and granduncles, your grandparents, and your aunts and uncles, is to make it unlikely, or at least less likely, that those names will disappear from your clan.

    So parents prioritize the names of deceased relatives over living relatives.

    They also prioritize names of relatives who don’t already have a (lineal or collateral) descendant named after them, over those who do.

    If a recently deceased relative, or an elderly relative, was or is the last one in their clan to bear their name, the parent is likely to put that relative’s name earlier in the sequence, than the name of other deceased or respectively living relatives.

    If a parent runs out of names from their own family to use, they may borrow names from their spouse’s (the other parent’s) family.

    —————————————————————

    At an unnamed child’s “christening” (i.e. naming ceremony), a parent will be sure to invite at least one full-sibling of their own sex, or one uterine and one agnate half-sibling of their own sex, to stand as “godparent” for the child to be named.
    As a general rule, both parents will invite every one of their siblings and half-siblings and even one-step-removed stepsiblings to be the child’s godparent, provided that person is at least twelve years older than the child. They’ll also invite their own children and maybe some of their stepchildren, if they’re old enough (the child’s full- and half- and one-step-removed stepsiblings at least twelve years older than the child).
    The child’s grandparents will invite their own siblings and half-siblings and some of their close step siblings; the parents may, and usually (or just often?) will invite such grandaunts and granduncles to become godparents.
    And a spouse of a godparent is usually included in the invitation to become godparent.

    But for the mother to have a full-sister, or both a uterine half-sister and an agnate half-sister, there to be the child’s godmother(s), will help in avoiding duplicating the name of a child’s same-sex parallel first cousin.
    So will the father having a full-brother, or both an agnate half-brother and a uterine half-brother, there to serve as the child’s godfather(s).

    They will cooperate in avoiding naming a child after a living relative who already has two or more of the child’s parallel-cousins named after them. And if it happens, the two same-namesaked children may get different nicknames from their shared godparent —— if they share a godparent.

    As we’ve seen maximal confusion arises among same-sex double-parallel-first-cousins, when either the fathers are full-brothers and the mothers are half-sisters, or the fathers are half-brothers and the mothers are full-sisters.

    ———————————————

    Based on http://conworlds.fun/cwbb/viewtopic.php?p=14632&highlight=adpihi+forename#14632 If double-parallel-first-cousins, do wind up having the same combination of first and second individual personal names, they may yet be distinguishable by name, if they were born in different years, or in different months, or in a different birth-order within their sibling-sets.

    Over 2 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    Bump

    Over 1 Year ago
    chiarizio
     

    In Adpihi and Reptigan.
    Certain kinds of “actual”, as opposed to classificatory, second cousins, shouldn’t marry certain kinds of “actual” first-cousins or half-siblings.

    Two men who have the same FFF should not marry two women who have the same FF.
    If they do, each couple’s firstborn son will get the both the same first part of his individual name —— that of both husbands’ FFF — and the same second part, that of both wives’ FF.


    Two men who have the same MFF shouldn’t marry two women who have the same MF.
    If they do, each couple’s second born son will have the same full name as the other couple’s second born son.

    And, as long as there’s not too strong a restriction against having third-born sons, two men with the same FMF shouldn’t marry two women with the same father. If they do, they’ll wind up duplicating the whole names of their third born sons.

    As long as people are at all likely to have fourth born sons, men with the same MMF shouldn’t marry women with the same mother.

    If those rules are followed, it follows that two men with the same FF or the same FM won’t be marrying two women with the same father;
    Nor will two men with the same MF or the same MM be marrying two women with the same mother.
    At least

    .....

    Two women with the same MMM shouldn’t marry two men with the same MM.
    Two women with the same FMM shouldn’t marry two men with the same FM.
    As long as it’s not too unlikely anyone will ever have a third-born daughter, two women with the same MFM shouldn’t marry two men with the same Mother.
    As long as it’s not too unlikely anyone will ever have a fourth-born daughter, two women with the same FFM shouldn’t marry two men with the same father.

    ...

    If two men have the same FFF, that means their FF grandfathers were full brothers or agnate half brothers, so their fathers were parallel cousins, so they’re second-cousins of a sort.
    If two women have the same FF, that means their fathers were full or agnate half-brothers, so the two women are parallel first cousins of some kind.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    2 men with the same: .......... shouldn’t marry 2 women with the same:
    FFF .......... FF
    MFF .......... MF
    FMF .......... Father
    MMF .......... Mother
    FF ......... Father
    MF ......... Mother
    FM .......... Father
    MM .......... Mother
    ...... .......... ......
    MM .......... MMM
    FM .......... FMM
    Mother .......... MFM
    Father .......... FFM
    Mother .......... MM
    Father .......... FM
    Mother .......... MF
    Father .......... FF
    ....... ........... .......

    So certain kinds of second-cousins shouldn’t marry certain kinds of first cousins or half-siblings, and certain kinds of first-cousins shouldn’t marry certain kinds of half-siblings.

    Two men with the same father shouldn’t marry two women with the same father.
    Because those two men have both the same FF and the same FM.

    Two men with the same mother shouldn’t marry two women with the same mother.
    Because those two women have both the same MM and the same MF.

    So agnate half-brothers shouldn’t marry agnate half-sisters; and enate (uterine) half-brothers shouldn’t marry enate (uterine) half-sisters.

    Full brothers should never marry full- nor half-sisters, and full sisters should never marry full- nor half-brothers.

    —————. ————— ————— ————— ————+-

    This still says nothing about whether agnate half-siblings ought or oughtn’t to marry enate half-siblings.
    Nor whether a brother-sister pair should marry another sister-brother pair.

    But I wonder whether it prohibits certain kinds of first-cousins from marrying certain kinds of first’cousins?

    —————. ————— ————— ————— —————

    To begin with I think it probably implies that if two men are double-parallel-first-cousins,
    having the same FF, the same FM, the same MF, and the same MM,
    then they shouldn’t marry two brides who are likewise each other’s double-parallel-first-cousins.

    Suppose the grooms have the same FF and the brides have the same FF.
    Then the firstborn sons will share the first parts of their individual names with their fathers’ FFF and with each other, and share the second part with their mothers’ FF and each other.

    If the grooms have the same FM and the brides also have the same FM then their second daughters will share their first name with their mother’s’ FMM and their second name with their fathers’ FM.

    If the grooms share their MF and the brides share their MF, the second sons will have duplicate names.
    If the grooms share their MM and the brides also share their MM, their first daughters will share their whole names.

    ————— —————. ————— —————

    It doesn’t seem to me at this point, if the grooms share their FF but no other grandparents and the brides share their FM and/or MF and/or MM but not their father nor their mother nor their FF, there’s necessarily a risk of duplicating names:
    Nor if the brides share their MM but no other grandparents and the grooms share their FF and/or FM and/or MF but not their MM nor their father nor their mother; I can’t prove there’s any risk they’ll duplicate names.

    I’d guess:
    As long as the grooms don’t share a parent and the brides also don’t share a parent,
    And if the grooms share their FF then the brides don’t and vice versa
    And if the grooms share their FM then the brides don’t and vice versa
    And if the grooms share their MF then the brides don’t and vice versa
    And if the grooms share their MM then the brides don’t and vice versa;

    Then as far as I can tell there’s no guaranteed risk of duplicating the whole personal name of the offspring of one couple with the same-birth-order same-sex child of the other couple.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    The question can be grossly simplified as follows.
    Speaking in terms of “actual” kin, not merely classificatory kin:
    In Adpihi and Reptigan:
    Two men who share an greatgrandfather or a granduncle need to be cautious about marrying two women who share a grandfather or an uncle: and conversely two women who share a grandfather or an uncle need to be cautious about marrying two men who share a greatgrandfather or a granduncle.

    And, two women who share a greatgrandmother or a grandaunt need to be cautious about marrying two men who share a grandmother or an aunt; and conversely two men who share a grandmother or an aunt need to be cautious about marrying two women who share a greatgrandmother or a grandaunt.

    .....

    Consider for instance two men who share their FFF marrying two women who share their FF.
    Consider the first sons of each couple.
    They’ll have the same patriclan, of course.
    They’ll have the same first individual name; that of their fathers’ FFF.
    And they’ll have the same second individual name; that of their mothers’ FF.
    If their mothers belong to the same matriclan and the same alterclan they’ll have all five official names in common.
    Even if their mothers belong to the same matriclan but different alterclan, or to the same alterclan but different matriclans, they’ll have four official names in common.
    If they’re in a prescriptive marriage situation it might be that the two women must be classificatory sisters, so that they unavoidably share all three clan names.
    If that’s the case they should not marry both of these couples.

    Similar reasoning applies if two women with the same MMM marry two men with the same MM.
    It might work out if the two men belong to different patriclans and/or different alterclans; but that might be impossible if they’re in a time or place where marriages are prescriptive.

    If two men with the same MFF marry two women with the same MF, or two women with the same FMM marry two men with the same FM, it might be a little different.
    Imagine two men who share their MFF marry two women who share their MF.
    Consider both couples’ second sons.
    The two husbands don’t necessarily share any clannames; in particular they might not share their patriclan.
    And the two wives also might not share any clannames; in particular they might share neither their matriclan nor their alterclan.
    If all of that happens to be true, the two second sons will still have the same individual name, both the first part and the second part; but they won’t share a clan name.
    Even if the husbands share their patriclan, if the wives share neither their matriclan nor their alterclan, the two sons won’t share all three clannames; or if the husbands are in different patriclans, and the wives are either from different matriclans or from different alterclans, then the second sons might share at most one clanname. That might be acceptable.
    On the other hand, if they’re in a prescriptive marriage situation, it might not be possible.

    The same reasoning applies when two women who share their FMM marry two men who share their FM.

    .....

    There’s much less flexibility about two parallel-cousin men who share a grandfather marrying two agnate half-sisters, or two parallel-cousin women who share a grandmother marrying two enate or uterine half-brothers.
    I think they’ll probably have to just avoid that.
    But I need to actually work it out, and I have other things to do today.
    So I’ll come back to it later.
    I’ll start by considering the sons of two couples where the husbands share their FF and the wives share their father.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    Suppose a man has two sons: they’ll be either full brothers, or agnate half brothers, to each other.
    Now suppose each of those two sons also has two sons; the least closely related they can be, all having the same FF, is parallel cousins.
    Suppose each of those four parallel cousins has two sons. This third filial generation will all be second-cousins, at least, to each other. They’ll all have the same FFF.
    Now suppose each of those eight men has a son.
    The men in the third filial generation are all supposed to give their own S1s the same first individual name that first guy — the shared FFF of the third filial generation — had.
    What if they don’t all do it?
    The S1’s S1’s S1 will do it for sure, let’s say.
    And the S1 S1 S2 will do it;
    And the S1 S2 S1 ;
    And the S2 S1 S1.
    But if so the original guy will now have four different namesakes already among the sons of the third filial generation; that is, among his SSSSs, the fourth filial generation.
    What if the
    S1 S2 S2 and the
    S2 S1 S2 and the
    S2 S2 S1 and the
    S2 S2 S2
    don’t name their own S1s after the original guy?
    In my estimation his name isn’t likely to die out.

    ....

    Or what if a man has two sons,
    each of whom has two daughters,
    each of whom has two sons,
    each of whom has a second son?
    The man’s S1’s D1’s S1,
    His S1’s D1’s S2,
    His S1’s D2’s S1,
    His S1’s D2’s S2,
    His S2’s D1’s S1,
    His S2’s D1’s S2,
    His S2’s D2’s S1, and
    His S2’s D2’s S2,
    Are all expected to name their S2’s after their shared MFF, the original guy.
    I imagine the S1D1S1 definitely will do so.
    Definitely at least one of, and probably at least two of, and frequently all three of, the
    S1D1S2
    S1D2S1
    S2D1S1
    Will also name their own S2 after their shared MFF (the original guy).
    But then what need is there for all four, or even any three or any two, of
    S1D2S2
    S2D1S2
    S2D2S1
    or
    S2D2S2
    to do so?

    ....

    Still looking at the first individual names of men’s sons.
    Suppose the founding father has two daughters D1 and D2;
    And each such daughter has two sons D1S1, D1S2, D2S1, and D2S2, has two sons;
    And each such son DxSySz has a third son.
    Each of the first man’s DSS is expected to name their own S3 after their joint FMF, the original guy.
    Imagine D1S1S1 does so, faithfully.
    And so do D1S1S2, and D1S2S1, and D2S1S1.
    If all four of those people managed to have a third son and name him as tradition requires, then
    D1S2S2, and D2S1S2, and D2S2S1, and especially D2S2S2, might not see the need to follow through with the naming system for their own third sons.

    .....

    Lastly suppose the founding father had two daughters, D1 and D2,
    each of whom had two daughters, so the second filial generation were
    D1D1 and D1D2 and D2D1 and D2D2;
    and each of those granddaughters had two sons, so the third filial generation contains at least the GGrandsons
    D1D1S1
    D1D1S2 and D1D2S1 and D2D1S1
    D1D2S2 and D2D1S2 and D2D2S1
    D2D2S2
    I think only about half of them will have fourth sons at all.
    Each of them who does have an S4, will be expected (if they follow the rules) to name him after their shared MMF, who is that original guy.
    But once two of them have done so, would the remainder feel obligated to continue the pattern?
    Or if three of them have done so, would the rest feel even less obligation?

    .....

    In times and places when people want lots of children, most people would have three sons, most people would have three daughters, about half would have a fourth son, and about half would have a fourth daughter.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    I made a whole bunch of posts in the last few days (not later than February 11 2021 and probably not earlier than February 1 2021),
    That should have gone here,
    In “Adpihi’s and Reptigan’s Rules About Marrying Half-Siblings’ Spouses’ Half-Siblings”.
    ...
    Sorry, self!
    ...
    Especially look at the ones posted today, 2021/February/11th.
    But all the ones posted on or after 2021/February/05th, up until and including today, 2021/02/11.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    I’m going to re-visit the statistics involved in fathers assigning the first individual names of their grandparents’ fathers and brothers to be the first individual names of their sons.

    We’ll start under the assumption that everyone has seven children, at least three but not more than four sons and at least three but not more than four daughters.

    And I’ll begin by investigating how often the various SSS greatgrandsons of a given man —— I’ll call him EGO —— will give him an SSSS1 namesake greatgreatgrandson by passing along their FFF’s first individual name (that is EGO’s first name) to be their own S1’s individual name.

    I think I’ll consider at most 54 of EGO’s SSS greatgrandsons.
    I think I’ll look at all the SxSySz where any one of x or y or z varies from 1 to 4 while the other two vary from 1 to 3.
    So there’ll be 27 SxSySz where each of x and y and z varies independently from 1 to 3 inclusive,
    and nine each of S4SxSy, SxS4Sy, SxSyS4 where each of x and y varies independently from 1 to 3 inclusive.
    Each one of those last 27 has a 50% chance of being born.

    (I foresee computational difficulties in accounting for any of them except S4S1S1 and S1S4S1 and S1S1S4. Oh well.)

    ....

    I think we can assume each of S1S1S1, S1S1S2, S1S2S1, and S2S1S1, will comply with the rule as soon as they can if they can, that is, when and if their own first son S1 is born.

    I think S1S2S2 might not see the urgency to comply if any two of S1S1S1 and S1S1S2 and S1S2S1 already have done so.
    So let’s say that S1S2S2 will comply 50% of the time.
    Likewise S2S1S2 and S2S2S1 will comply 50% of the time.

    And I don’t think S2S2S2 will see the urgency to comply if any two of
    S1S1S1 S1S1S2 S1S2S1 S2S1S1 S1S2S2 S2S1S2 S2S2S1 have already complied.
    So say S2S2S2 complies 6.25% of the time.

    I don’t think S1S1S3 will see the need to comply if both S1S1S1 and S1S1S2 have already complied.
    So say S1S1S3 will comply 75% of the time.
    Similarly S1S3S1 won’t feel any pressure to comply if both S1S1S1 and S1S2S1 have already complied;
    So S1S3S1 will comply 75% of the time.
    And similarly S3S1S1 will comply 75% of the time.

    S1S2S3 might not comply if any two of S1S1S1, S1S1S2, S1S2S1, S1S2S2, and S1S1S3 have already complied. So S1S2S3 will comply 18.75% of the time.
    Likewise S1S3S2, S2S1S3, S3S1S2, S2S3S1, and S3S2S1, will comply 18.75% of the time.

    EGO will have 2*2*3 = 12 SxSySz greatgrandsons where each of x and y and z varies independently, x and y varying from 1 to 2 and z varying from 1 to 3.
    One of those will be S2S2S3. The other 11 won’t be.
    S2S2S3 may feel little pressure to comply with the custom if any two of those 11 already have done so.
    So S2S2S3 may comply only 12/2048 = 3/512 = less than 0.6% of the time.
    Similarly S2S3S2 and S3S2S2 might each comply at most 0.6% of the time.

    S1S3S3 might not feel compelled to comply if any two of
    S1S1S1, S1S1S2, S1S2S1, S1S2S2, S1S1S3, S1S3S1, S1S2S3, and/or S1S3S2, have already complied.
    So S1S3S3 might not feel compelled to comply more than 9 times out of 256, that is something less than 3.6% of the time.

    S2S3S3 might not feel compelled to comply more than 18/(2^17) = 9/65536 of the time, less than 0.02% of the time.
    Same for S3S2S3 and S3S3S2.

    And S3S3S3 might feel compelled to comply at most 27/(2^26) of the time, less than 0.00004% of the time. Effectively never.

    S1S1S4 might not feel compelled to comply if any two of S1S1S1 or S1S1S2 or S1S1S3 have already complied.
    So S1S1S4 might comply as little as 50% of the time.
    Similarly S4S1S1 might feel compelled to comply only if fewer than two of S1S1S1, S2S1S1, and S3S1S1 have already complied; perhaps as little as 50% of the time.

    .......... ......... ..........

    The next computation is complicated by the fact that S1S1S4 might not exist.

    .... .... .... ....

    S1S2S4 might not feel compelled to comply unless fewer than two of
    S1S1S1, S1S1S2, S1S2S1, S1S2S2, S1S1S3, S1S2S3, and S1S1S4, have already complied.
    For each of those first six let’s assume that the odds their S1 was born before S1S2S4’s S1 was 50%.
    But the probability S1S1S4S1 was born before S1S2S4S1 is only 25%, because there’s a 50% probability S1S1S4 was never born, even though S1S2S4 was.
    So if I’m doing the right thing and doing it right, the odds that none of those seven greatgrandsons’ S1 was born before S1S2S4’s S1, is ((2^6)*3)/(4^7) = 1.171875%.
    And the odds that one of those first six was the only one to have their S1 before S1S2S4 had his, is 6 times that, or 7.03125%.
    But the odds that S1S1S4 is the only one of the seven whose S1 is born before S1S2S4S1, is (2^6)/(4^7) or 0.390625%.

    Adding up I get 7.03125 + 1.171875 + 0.390625 = 8.59375 or about 8.6%.

    ......

    The same applies to S2S1S4, since S1S1S4 might not exist even if S2S1S4 does.

    So S1S2S4 and S2S1S4 might feel compelled to comply at most about 8.6% of the time or less.

    .... .... .... ....

    However if S1S4S2 exists then S1S4S1 does as well.
    So if S1S4S2 exists I think he’ll feel compelled to comply at most (7+1)/(2^7) = 8/128 = 1/16 = 6.25% of the time.

    As for S2S4S1; if he exists, that doesn’t mean S1S4S1 does. So for him we’re back to complying <8.6% of the time.

    Now consider S4S1S2. If he exists, then S4S1S1 does also, so he must comply at least 6.25% of the time.

    If S4S2 exists then S4S1 must exist. We have been assuming that if S4S1 exists then S4S1S1 must also exist. That would mean that if S4S2S1 exists then S4S1S1 exists.
    So we could calculate that S4S2S1 must comply at least 6.25% of the time also.

    ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

    You can see that there’d be similar but greater, or at least more complicated, difficulties in computing how often S2S2S4 or S2S4S2 or S4S2S2 must comply; and whatever the answer is it is likely to be small.

    The same applies to S1S3S4, S3S1S4, S1S4S3, S3S4S1, S4S1S3, and S4S3S1.

    Once we get to S2S3S4 and S2S4S3 and S3S2S4 and S3S4S2 and S4S2S3 and S4S3S2, we’re into fractions of millionths. We could just say that all these permutations, and all later ones, are very unlikely to be compelled to follow the tradition.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    The way it seems to be going seems to be this.
    As far as birth-order, it looks like it works the way I originally proposed.
    But the later in the list the “rule” is, the more common compliance is, rather than the less common.

    ......

    If we’re assigning a first individual name to an S1 or S2 or S3 or D1 or D2 or D3,

    If the birth-order triplet of the namer’s grandparent and parent and the namer themself is
    1,1,1 or 1,1,2 or 1,2,1 or 2,1,1
    Then compliance is 100%.

    If it’s
    1,1,3 or 1,3,1 or 3,1,1
    Then compliance is 75%.

    If it’s
    1,1,4 or 1,4,1 or 4,1,1
    Then compliance is 50%.

    If it’s
    1,2,2 or 2,1,2 or 2,2,1
    Then compliance is 50%.

    ....

    The stats might be different for naming an S4 or a D4.

    They’re definitely different for naming an S5 or S6 or S7 or a D5 or D6 or D7.

    The strictness of compliance for a certain birth-order of namers and namers’ parents and grandparents, gets shifted to later birth-orders from earlier.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    When we’re discussing parents assigning first individual names to one of their first four same-sex offspring by naming them after one of the naming parent’s grandparents’ parent-of-the-appropriate-sex, there’s a simple formula for estimating the naming parent’s degree of compliance, based on the birth-order of the the connecting relatives.
    It’s an “estimate” because it has to be modified to take into account the possibility that some other possible likely-to-be-older relatives never were born.

    Example: if EGO is a man and has an SSS great-grandson who is considering naming his S1 after his FFF (who is EGO),
    if the naming parent is EGO’s Sx’s Sy’s Sz (xth’s son’s yth son’s zth son), his probability of compliance will probably be about
    xyz/(2^(xyz-1)).

    So if (x, y, z) is (1, 1, 1) this is (1*1*1)/(2^((1*1*1)-1) = 1/(2^(1-1)) = 1/(2^0) = 1/1 = 1, or 100%.
    If {x, y, z} is {1, 1, 2} in some order or other — (1,1,2) or (1,2,1) or (2,1,1) — then since xyz=2 this is
    2/(2^(2-1)) = 2/(2^1) = 2/2 = 1, still; or still 100%.

    If {x, y, z} is {1, 1, 3} in some order — (1,1,3) or (1,3,1) or (3,1,1) — then xyz is 3 so the compliance rate is 3/(2^(3-1)) = 3/(2^2) = 3/4 = 75%.

    If {x, y, z} is {1, 1, 4} in some order then xyz = 1*1*4 = 4.
    But also if {x, y, z} is {1, 2, 2} in some order — (1,2,2) or (2,1,2) or (2,2,1) — then still xyz = 1*2*2 = 4.
    In any one of those six cases the probability of compliance will be estimated at 4/(2^(4-1)) = 4/(2^3) = 4/8 = 1/2 = 50%.

    If xyz > 16 I think the estimate is going to be close to 0.
    I was going to continue through to xyz=21, but skip the primes 17 and 19; to get a denominator of 1048576 = 2^20, but I guess I won’t.

    ........ ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ .......


    So:
    First sons of first sons of first sons, (S1S1S1)
    And first sons of first sons of second sons, (S2S1S1)
    And first sons of second sons of first sons, (S1S2S1)
    And second sons of first sons of first sons, (S1S1S2)
    Name their own S1 first sons after their FFF dang near 100% of the time.

    S1S1S3 and S1S3S1 and S3S1S1 name their own S1s after their FFFs 75% of the time.

    S1S1S4 and S1S4S1 and S4S1S1, and S1S2S2 and S2S1S2 and S2S2S1, name their S1 first sons after their FFFs 50% of the time.

    And so on.

    ....

    Similarly,
    S1D1S1 and S1D1S2 and S1D2S1 and S2D1S1 name their S2 after their MFF 100% of the time;


    And,
    D1S1S1 and D1S1S2 and D1S2S1 and D2S1S1 name their S3 third sons after their FMF father’s mother’s father 100% of the time;


    And D1D1S1, D1D1S2, D1D2S1, D2D1S1 name their S4 fourth son after their MMF greatgrandfather 100% of the time;


    ====. ————— =====. —————. =====. —————

    And we get substantially similar results when calculating how often a woman EGO’s greatgranddaughters respectively DDD, DSD, SDD, SSD will name their D1s, D2s, D3s, D4s
    after her as their respectively MMM, FMM, MFM, and FFM.

    100% for D1D1D1 D1D1D2 D1D2D1 D2D1D1 to name their D1 for their MMM
    100% for D1S1D1 D1S1D2 D1S2D1 D2S1S1 to name their D2 for their FMM
    100% for S1D1D1 S1D1D2 S1D2D1 S2D1D1 to name their D3 for their MFM
    100% for S1S1D1 S1S1D2 S1S1D1 S2S1D1 to name their D4 for their FFM

    75% for D1D1D3 D1D3D1 D3D1D1 to name their D1 for MMM
    ....
    50% for D1D1D4 D1D4D1 D4D1D1 or D1D2D2 D2D1D2 D2D2D1 to name their D1 for MMM
    ...

    And similar odds to name D2 for FMM, D3 for MFM, and D4 for FFM.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    The “rules” also specify that fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth sons should be named after the oldest brothers of their father’s grandparents; and D5 and D6 and D7 and D8 should be named after their mother’s MM’s and FM’s and MF’s and FF’s Z1s (grandparents’ oldest sisters).

    To save on the headaches let’s suppose EGO is either both his father’s oldest son and his mother’s oldest son,
    or else both her father’s oldest daughter and her mother’s oldest daughter.
    Furthermore let’s assume EGO has only full siblings, no half-siblings.

    To start with the men,
    EGO’s BSS grandnephews are expected to name their S5s after their FFB1 granduncle
    EGO’s BDS grandnephews are expected to name their S6s after their MFB1 granduncle
    EGO’s ZSS grandnephews are expected to name their S7s after their FMB1 granduncle.
    EGO’s ZDS grandnephews are expected to name their S8s after their MMB1 granduncle.

    ....

    B1S1S1 and B1S1S2 and B1S2S1 and B2S1S1 should follow the S5 rule 100% of the time.
    But EGO’s B1 is their parents’ S2. And EGO’s B2 is their parent’s S3.
    So EGO’s B1S1 is EGO’s parents S2S1, and EGO’s B1S2 is EGO’s parents’ S2S2, and EGO’s B2S1 is EGO’s parents’ S3S1.

    In general:
    EGO’s BxSySz is
    EGO’s parents’ S(x+1)SySz .

    So to calculate the compliance fractions of EGO’s parents’ SxSySz we need to use the product (x-1)*y*z instead of the product xyz.

    (x-1)*yz will be 1 if and only if x=2 and y=1 and z=1.

    So S2S1S1s will name S2S1S1S5 after EGO —— the naming parent’s FFB1, and the named sons FFFB1 — 100% of the time, since 1/(2^(1-1)) is 1.

    (x-1)*yz will be 2 if (x,y,z) is (2,1,2) or (2,2,1) or (3,1,1).
    So S2S1S2 and S2S2S1 and S3S1S1 will also name their S5s after their FFB1 100% of the time, since 2/(2^(2-1)) also is 1.

    (x-1)*yz = 3 if and only if (x,y,z) is (2,1,3) or (2,3,1) or (4,1,1).
    So S2S1S3 and S2S3S1 and S4S1S1 will follow the “name your S5 after your FFB1” rule 75% of the time. (Since 3/(2^(3-1)) = 3/4.)

    (x-1)*yz = 4 if (x,y,z) is (2,1,4) or (2,4,1) or (5,1,1); or (2,2,2) or (3,1,2) or (3,2,1).
    So S2S1S4 and S2S4S1 and S5S1S1 and S2S2S2 and S3S1S2 and S3S2S1 will follow the S5 rule 50% of the time. Since 4/(2^(4-1)) = 4/8.

    .........

    The same reasoning says that
    S2D1S1, S2D1S2, S2D2S1, and S3D1S1 will follow the rule “name your S6 after your MFB1” 100% of the time;
    And so on,

    ....

    However no such hassle is necessary when a man is naming his S7 and S8 after his FMB1 and his MMB1.
    If EGO is male:
    EGO’s Z1 is their parents’ D1. EGO’s Z2 is their parents’ D2.
    EGO’s Z1S1 is EGO’s parents’ D1S1, and EGO’s Z1S2 is EGO’s parents’ D1S2, and EGO’s Z2S1 is EGO’s parents’ D2S1.
    If EGO is male.

    So in, for instance, the S7 case,
    D1S1S1 and D1S1S2 and D1S2S1 and D2S1S1 will all name their S7 after their FMB1 100% of the time.
    And so on.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    General principles do emerge.
    When naming his sons their first individual names after his grandparents’ fathers, a man can calculate the odds that he must comply with the rules
    “Name your S1 after your FFF”
    “Name your S2 after your MFF”
    “Name your S3 after your FMF”
    “Name your S4 after your MMF”
    by taking the birth-order number x of his grandfather (for his S1 or S2) among the sons of the relevant greatgrandfather, or of his grandmother (for his S3 or S4) among the daughters of the relevant greatgrandfather;
    and the birth-order number y of his father (for his S1 or S3) among the sons of the relevant grandparent, or of his mother (for his S2 or S4) among the daughters of the relevant parent;
    and his own birth-order number z among the sons of the relevant parent;
    And form the product xyz.
    The odds he should comply are xyz/(2^(xyz-1)).

    When naming his S5 and later sons after a brother of one of his grandfathers, the product should instead be (x-1)*yz and the odds should be ((x-1)*yz)/(2^(((x-1)*yz)-1)), unless x is 1 (that is, his relevant grandfather was a firstborn son and had no older brother) in which case the product should just be yz and the odds should be yz/(2^(yz-1)).
    But if he’s naming an S7 or later son after a brother of one of his grandmothers, he still uses his grandmothers birth-order number in forming the product xyz and calculating his compliance as xyz/(2^(xyz-1)).

    That means a grandson of an S2 has to be as compliant about naming an S5 or an S6 after his grandfather’s oldest brother GFB1, or naming an S9 after his FFB2 granduncle, as a similar grandson has to be about naming his S1 or S2 after his grandfather’s father.
    And the grandson of an S3 has to be as conscientious about naming an S5 after his FFB1 or an S6 after his MFB1 or an S9 after his FFB2, as an otherwise similar grandson of an S2 would be about naming an S1 or an S2 after an FFF or MFF.
    And a grandson of an S4 would have to be as careful to name an S5 or S6 or S9 after a GFB1 or FFB2 granduncle as an S3 would about naming an S1 or an S2 after a grandfather’s father.
    And so on.

    ..........

    All of this applies, mutatis mutandis and ceteris paribus, to women copying the first individual names of their D1 and D2 and D3 and D4 from the first individual names of their grandparents’ mothers.
    And to naming their D5s and D6s after the oldest sisters of their grandmothers, MMZ1 and FMZ1.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    Now consider a woman giving her sons the second individual names of her parents’ fathers and brothers.
    She wants to name her S1 after her FF; her S2 after her MF; her S3 after her FB1; her S4 after her MB1; her S5 after her FB2; and so on.
    If she’s an SxDy — some man’s xth son’s yth daughter — she wants to name her S1 after her FF with probability xy/(2^(xy-1)).
    If she’s DxDy — some man’s xth daughter’s yth daughter — she wants to name her S2 after her MF with probability xy/(2^(xy-1)).
    If she’s an S1Dy —— some man’s first son’s yth daughter— she wants to name her S3 after her FB1 with probability y/(2^(y-1)).
    If x>1 and she’s an SxDy, she wants to name her S3 after her FB1 with probability ((x-1)*y) / (2^(((x-1)*y)-1))
    If she’s a DxDy she wants to name her S4 after her MB1 with probability xy/(2^(xy-1)).
    If she’s an S1Dy —— some man’s first son’s yth daughter— she wants to name her S5 after her FB2 with probability y/(2^(y-1)).
    If x>1 and she’s an SxDy, she wants to name her S5 after her FB2 with probability ((x-1)*y) / (2^(((x-1)*y)-1))
    If she’s a DxDy she wants to name her S6 after her MB2 with probability xy/(2^(xy-1)).
    And so on.

    .......... .......... ..........

    For fathers choosing their daughter’s second individual names from those of their parent’s mothers and sisters, the same applies, mutatis mutandis (changing what must be changed) and ceteris paribus (other conditions remaining the same).

    A woman’s DxSy names his D1 after his MM xy/(2^(xy-1)) of the time.
    A woman’s SxSy names his D2 after his FM xy/(2^(xy-1)) of the time.
    A D1Sy names his D3 after his MZ1 y/(2^(y-1)) of the time.
    If x>1 a DxSy names his D3 after his MZ1 ((x-1)*y)/(2^(((x-1)*y)-1)) of the time.
    An SxSy names his D4 after his FZ1 xy/(2^(xy-1)) of the time.
    And so on.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    If a man is considering giving his fifth son — his S5 — the same first individual name the man’s granduncle FFB1 — his grandfather FF’s oldest brother — had,
    If the man’s FF is his FFB1’s B1 and the man’s father is his grandfather’s S1 (the man’s father is the man’s FFB1’s B1S1) and the man is his father’s S1, so the man is his FFB1’s B1S1S1, then the man will comply with the S5 rule 100% of the time.
    Similarly, if the man is his FFB1’s B2S1S1 or his FFB1’s B1S2S1 or his FFB1’s B1S1S2, he’ll follow the S5 rule 100% of the time.
    On the other hand if he’s his FFB1’s B3S1S1 or his FFB1’s B1S3S1 or his FFB1’s B1S1S3, he’ll follow the rule 75% of the time.
    If he’s his FFB1’s B4S1S1 or B1S4S1 or B1S1S4; or his FFB1’s B2S2S1 or B2S1S2 or B1S2S2; he’ll follow the rule 50% of the time.
    If he’s his FFB1’s B5S1S1 or B1S5S1 or B1S1S5, he’ll follow the rule 30.75% of the time.
    If he’s his FFB1’s B6S1S1 or B1S6S1 or B1S1S6, or his FFB1’s B3S2S1 or B3S1S2 or B2S3S1 or B2S1S3 or B1S3S2 or B1S2S3, he’ll follow the rule 18.75% of the time.
    And so on.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    I’m going to try something simpler.
    I’m going to start with a woman I’ll call W giving second individual names to her sons.
    In certain circumstances she’ll be expected to give them the same second name that one of her grandfathers or uncles had or has.
    She often won’t be expected to if the grandfather or uncle in question already has two granddaughters’ or nieces’ sons thus named after him.
    She’ll never be expected to give another son that name if she has already given a son that name.
    If she has the freedom to choose, she is expected to choose the name of a different grandfather or uncle; prioritizing the ones who don’t already have a namesake, or have only one; and within that prioritizing the longest-deceased, or the oldest.
    If she is an oldest son’s or oldest daughter’s or oldest brother’s or oldest sister’s first or second daughter; or a second son’s or second daughter’s or second brother’s or second sister’s oldest daughter; she may have less freedom.
    Her freedom is still somewhat restricted if she’s an oldest son’s or oldest daughter’s or oldest brother’s or oldest sister’s daughter, even if not their first or second daughter;
    or if she is the oldest daughter of the relevant parent, even if that parent is not an oldest or second son nor oldest or second daughter nor oldest or second brother or oldest or second sister.

    Here are some details which I hope aren’t confused or confusing.

    If W is her FF’s S1D1 or S1D2 or S2D1 she must name her own S1 after her FF.
    Otherwise: If W is her FF’s S1D and her FF doesn’t already have two S1DS1s named after him she must name her S1 after her FF.
    Otherwise: If W is her FF’s SD1 and her FF doesn’t already have two SD1S1s named after him she must name her S1 after her FF.
    Otherwise: If W’s FF doesn’t already have two SDS1s named after him she must name her S1 after her FF.
    Otherwise: If her FF already has two SDS1s named after him, or W already has named a son after her FF, she is not expected to name a son after her FF.

    Once the above obligation has been met:
    If W is her MF’s D1D1 or D1D2 or D2D1 she must name her next son after her MF. (Unless she has already named a son that name).
    Otherwise: If W is her MF’s D1D and her MF doesn’t already have two D1DSs named after him she must name her next son after her MF.
    Otherwise: If W is her MF’s DD1 and her MF doesn’t already have two DD1Ss named after him she must name her next son after her MF.
    Otherwise: If W’s MF doesn’t already have two DDSs named after him she must name her next son after her MF.
    Otherwise: If her MF already has two DDSs named after him, or W already has named a son after her MF, she is not expected to name another son after her MF.

    Once both of the above obligations have been met:
    If W is her FB1’s B1D1 or B1D2 or B2D1 she must name her next son after her FB1 (unless she has already given a son that name).
    Otherwise if W is her FB1’s B1D and her FB1 doesn’t already have two B1DSs named after him she must name her next son after her FB1 (unless she has already given a son that name).
    Otherwise if W is her FB1’s BD1 and her FB1 doesn’t already have two BD1Ss named after him she must name her next son after her FB1 unless she has already given a son that name.
    Otherwise if W’s FB1 doesn’t already have two BDSs named after him she must name her next son after her FB1 unless she has already given a son that name.
    Otherwise if W’s FB1 already has two BDSs named after him, or she has already named a son after her FB1, she is not expected to name a son after her FB1.

    Once all of the above obligations have been met:
    If W is her MB1’s Z1D1 or Z1D2 or Z2D1 she must name her next son after her MB1 (unless she has already given a son that name).
    Otherwise if W is her MB1’s Z1D and her MB1 doesn’t already have two Z1DSs named after him she must name her next son after her MB1 (unless she has already given a son that name).
    Otherwise if W is her MB1’s ZD1 and her MB1 doesn’t already have two ZD1Ss named after him she must name her next son after her MB1 unless she has already given a son that name.
    Otherwise if W’s MB1 doesn’t already have two ZDSs named after him she must name her next son after her MB1 unless she has already given a son that name.
    Otherwise if W’s MB1 already has two ZDSs named after him, or she has already named a son after her MB1, she is not expected to name a son after her MB1.

    Once all of the above obligations have been met:
    W should name her next son after her longest-deceased grandfather or uncle who does not yet have an SDS (if it’s her FF) or a DDS (if it’s her MF) or a BDS (if it’s her FB) or a ZDS (if it’s her MB) named after him.
    Otherwise, W should name her next son after her oldest grandfather or uncle who does not yet have an SDS (if it’s her FF) or a DDS (if it’s her MF) or a BDS (if it’s her FB) or a ZDS (if it’s her MB) named after him.
    Otherwise, W should name her next son after her longest-deceased grandfather or uncle who does not yet have two SDSs (if it’s her FF) or two DDSs (if it’s her MF) or two BDSs (if it’s her FB) or two ZDSs (if it’s her MB) named after him.
    Otherwise, W should name her next son after her oldest grandfather or uncle who does not yet have two SDSs (if it’s her FF) or two DDSs (if it’s her MF) or two BDSs (if it’s her FB) or two ZDSs (if it’s her MB) named after him.

    Otherwise, W should choose another second name for her next son.

    4 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    Reply to: Names names names...

    Username
    Password