19 replies to this topic

[Helen of Annoy]

No, I was just ranting about our, Croatian, limited number of signs in most of forms.

I’m quite sure Americans have no problem with patronymics or numerous names in general.

It was a discovery for me that patronymic is seen as second first name, not prequel of surname... if that makes any sense
Or that’s Bulgarians only? They attach the patronymic as the last first name, then comes the surname.

Anyway, I don’t think it's hostility that makes people change kids' names, or lack of tolerance. They wouldn't adopt that child if they minded origins that much. It's not fear of not fitting in, in a country where people name their kids very creatively, Alien Sunset or Egzeema included. I think it’s subconscious desire of parents to give their children new destiny with new name.
Call me crazy, I won’t mind.

[and then]

Helen of Annoy, on 31 December 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

No, I was just ranting about our, Croatian, limited number of signs in most of forms.

I’m quite sure Americans have no problem with patronymics or numerous names in general.

It was a discovery for me that patronymic is seen as second first name, not prequel of surname... if that makes any sense
Or that’s Bulgarians only? They attach the patronymic as the last first name, then comes the surname.

Anyway, I don’t think it's hostility that makes people change kids' names, or lack of tolerance. They wouldn't adopt that child if they minded origins that much. It's not fear of not fitting in, in a country where people name their kids very creatively, Alien Sunset or Egzeema included. I think it’s subconscious desire of parents to give their children new destiny with new name.
Call me crazy, I won’t mind.

When my wife and I adopted our daughter from China we were advised to keep part of her name in Mandarin and we did so.  She's proud of her ties to her culture of origin and we are happy it is so.  Plus an "X" makes for a cool middle initial in English  

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Helen of Annoy, on 31 December 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

It was a discovery for me that patronymic is seen as second first name, not prequel of surname... if that makes any sense Or that’s Bulgarians only? They attach the patronymic as the last first name, then comes the surname.

I'm not expert on history of names. Anyway, I think that all Slavs and Germanic peoples had patronymic in some form. I think originally it was all similar to what is in Iceland still. For instance, if your given name is Sigurd and your father's name is Olaf, then your full name is Sigurd Olafson, and if you name your son Erik, then he will be Erik Sigurdson, and it is similar for daughter who will be Sigurdsdottir. There is no family name. In Russian it was only given name and patronymic, then at some time in distant past family names were invented, same as all over Europe, often based on what you did or some characteristic. In Russia, Ukraine and Belarus the patronymic has remained. Perhaps your given name and patronymic are more your name than the family name, it is why except with family and friends, people are addressed by given name and patronymic, for instance Vladislav Alexandrovich. You see in other Slav countries the patronymic has become the family name, for instance Milosevic or Mikhailovic and there are many other example you will be familiar with, they are all descended from patronymics in the past.

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 31 December 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[acidhead]

Global Demography.  You guys should read up on it, especially Russia.

Russia is experiencing a dying population due to a negative birth to death rate ratio.  To maintain a stagnant population each couple needs to give birth to 2.1 children.  It is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime.  It's called  total fertility rate (TFR).  Russia's TFR was 1.61 in 2011 and declining.  Russia's population is shrinking.

[Helen of Annoy]

acidhead, on 01 January 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

Global Demography.  You guys should read up on it, especially Russia.

Russia is experiencing a dying population due to a negative birth to death rate ratio.  To maintain a stagnant population each couple needs to give birth to 2.1 children.  It is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime.  It's called  total fertility rate (TFR).  Russia's TFR was 1.61 in 2011 and declining.  Russia's population is shrinking.

60,000 children over the course of 20 years have no visible effect on estimated 143,300,000 population.
Russian authorities probably wouldn’t allow adopting their citizens out of the country if they thought it damages their TFR, or they cared about TFR, or they wanted all orphaned (or abandoned) babies in state’s care.

And even if they suddenly decided they won’t allow average 3,000 children a year leaving the country (crocodile drug and unique driving style probably eat away more young people than that), still they shouldn’t have stopped already arranged adoptions, for adopted children’s sake.