Den 11-05-2022 kl. 21:08 skrev Sam Plusnet:
> On 11-May-22 18:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes:
>>> On 11 May 2022 16:53:02 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
>>> wrote:
>>>> fi·an·cé   A   man engaged to be married.
>>> Yes, I know.
>>
>>    Yes, I knew.
>>
>>    I wrote it for the English learners reading this group.
>
> Interesting.
> I assumed that the "English learners" each start a thread by asking a
> question, and only ever look at the responses to those specific questions.
>
> I don't recall any occasions when they have popped up in an existing
> thread to ask a question. (Or is my recall faulty?)

I have been known to do so from time to time.
(Still learning after 50 years or so)

/Anders, Denmark

On 11 May 2022 17:14:27 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes:
>>On 11 May 2022 16:53:02 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
>>wrote:
>>>fi·an·cé A man engaged to be married.
>>Yes, I know.
>
> Yes, I knew.
>
> I wrote it for the English learners reading this group.

Then you should have made that clear in your message. The way I read
it was that you were trying to educate me.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:51:31 PM UTC-4, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 11 May 2022 17:14:27 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
> wrote:
>
> >Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> writes:
> >>On 11 May 2022 16:53:02 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
> >>wrote:
> >>>fi·an·cé A man engaged to be married.
> >>Yes, I know.
> >
> > Yes, I knew.
> >
> > I wrote it for the English learners reading this group.
> Then you should have made that clear in your message. The way I read
> it was that you were trying to educate me.

Then you are reading too much into all this.

On Wed, 11 May 2022 13:47:27 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Ken Blake:
>
>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 10:31:37 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Adam Funk:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-05-10, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * Lewis:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <uijqakenhi68$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 18:12:30 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rankin is a "must read" author for me, and I've read every book he's
>>>>>>>>>written.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So have I.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reading on his Wikipedia page "He lives in Edinburgh with his wife,
>>>>>>> Miranda (née Harvey)", I thought for a moment that she had changed her
>>>>>>> name from Harvey to Miranda. I might know too many people at this point
>>>>>>> who've done this kind of change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very odd thing to think. Have you not seen née before?
>>>>>
>>>>> First, it has a lot to do with "Harvey" being a common first name. It
>>>>> would never have happened with "Smith".
>>>>>
>>>>>> née: originally called; born (used in giving a married woman's maiden
>>>>>> name after her surname): Mary Toogood, née Johnson.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why should it be limited to women who changed their name upon
>>>>> marriage? To single that one case of name change out seems outdated.
>>>>>
>>>>> I live in a place where changing your last name upon marriage has not
>>>>> been offered by the law for 50 years, so some people do forget about
>>>>
>>>> "not been offered" = the wife cannot change surname on marriage, or
>>>> just that it isn't the default?
>>>
>>>Name change isn't part of the marriage process, and if you ask for a
>>>generic name change, independent of that, you need to give a reason, and
>>>marriage is not enough of a reason. Or so I've been told.
>>>
>>>My feeling is that the bureaucracy simply wants to file a person under
>>>their birth name forever for simplicity's sake. Even though my wife had
>>>legally changed her name upon marriage when we arrived here, they wanted
>>>her "birth name" on the health insurance card, for example. "You can add
>>>your married name as an addendum".
>>
>> I've known several women who didn't change their last name to their
>> husband's when they were married, usually because they were
>> professionally known by their birth name.
>
>That you even say it this way dates you. For more and more younger
>people, there isn't even a "default way" and "the exception" any more,
>but a range of possibilities what two people could do with their names
>if they marry.

You continue that passive-aggressive style of suggesting the negative
without actually coming out with it.

I didn't say anything about a "default" or "exceptions". I stated
what my own experiences have been with "several" people. Anything
above that does not follow just >> is not something I wrote. Just
those 3 lines.

As far as being "dated", I think I'm probably more in touch with a
wider group and wider range of ages you are. Based on your posts,
your outside-of-work contacts are mostly with a particular type of
people that don't necessarily represent the average "younger" person.

My contacts do include some older farts, but also their families
including offspring and offspring's offspring. I'm involved other
social functions that are not age-related. I can't imagine why you
would think I'm now aware of the different name-taking variations of
women who marry.

You seem to think that our age difference has something to do with me
being unaware of the obvious. There's also a basic difference between
us in what we see and note of those about us. Your first thought
always seems to be how you want to be perceived by other people, and
how you think they perceive you. You seem to want to project an image
and how that image is received is all-important to you.

I don't give that much, if any, thought, and would be more inclined to
notice what they've done with their name because I'm listening to them
and not trying to project an image.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

* Adam Funk:

> On 2022-05-11, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> * Adam Funk:
>>
>>> On 2022-05-10, Quinn C wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Lewis:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <uijqakenhi68$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 18:12:30 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rankin is a "must read" author for me, and I've read every book he's
>>>>>>>>written.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So have I.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Reading on his Wikipedia page "He lives in Edinburgh with his wife,
>>>>>> Miranda (née Harvey)", I thought for a moment that she had changed her
>>>>>> name from Harvey to Miranda. I might know too many people at this point
>>>>>> who've done this kind of change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very odd thing to think. Have you not seen née before?
>>>>
>>>> First, it has a lot to do with "Harvey" being a common first name. It
>>>> would never have happened with "Smith".
>>>>
>>>>> née: originally called; born (used in giving a married woman's maiden
>>>>> name after her surname): Mary Toogood, née Johnson.
>>>>
>>>> But why should it be limited to women who changed their name upon
>>>> marriage? To single that one case of name change out seems outdated.
>>>>
>>>> I live in a place where changing your last name upon marriage has not
>>>> been offered by the law for 50 years, so some people do forget about
>>>
>>> "not been offered" = the wife cannot change surname on marriage, or
>>> just that it isn't the default?
>>
>> Name change isn't part of the marriage process, and if you ask for a
>> generic name change, independent of that, you need to give a reason, and
>> marriage is not enough of a reason. Or so I've been told.
>
> I just found that online:
>
> Selon le Code civil du Québec, chacun des époux conserve son nom
> après le mariage et exerce ses droits civils sous ce nom. Ainsi, si
> une femme mariée désire obtenir le nom de famille de son époux, le
> Directeur de l'état civil ne lui accordera ce changement de nom que
> dans une situation exceptionnelle.
>
> <https://etatcivil.gouv.qc.ca/fr/changement-nom.html>
>
> It strikes me as progressive that not changing it is normal, but
> arrogant of the state to say that you can't change your own name just
> because you want to.

Agreed, but the law on name changes is rather restrictive. It's more in
a European (continental) tradition than a UK/US one, I think.

Among the reasons listed for having your name changed, I find "having
used a different name for 5 years or more", so I guess if you change
your name in some places (so you can prove that you were using it), you
could change it after being married for 5 years. But I haven't heard of
people doing that, either. I know a local couple who got married in
Vermont because (at least among other reasons) one wanted to change her
name. Ontario would work too, I believe.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

* Tony Cooper:

> On Wed, 11 May 2022 13:47:27 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Ken Blake:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 10:31:37 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>* Adam Funk:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-05-10, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Lewis:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <uijqakenhi68$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 18:12:30 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Rankin is a "must read" author for me, and I've read every book he's
>>>>>>>>>>written.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So have I.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reading on his Wikipedia page "He lives in Edinburgh with his wife,
>>>>>>>> Miranda (née Harvey)", I thought for a moment that she had changed her
>>>>>>>> name from Harvey to Miranda. I might know too many people at this point
>>>>>>>> who've done this kind of change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very odd thing to think. Have you not seen née before?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, it has a lot to do with "Harvey" being a common first name. It
>>>>>> would never have happened with "Smith".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> née: originally called; born (used in giving a married woman's maiden
>>>>>>> name after her surname): Mary Toogood, née Johnson.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But why should it be limited to women who changed their name upon
>>>>>> marriage? To single that one case of name change out seems outdated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I live in a place where changing your last name upon marriage has not
>>>>>> been offered by the law for 50 years, so some people do forget about
>>>>>
>>>>> "not been offered" = the wife cannot change surname on marriage, or
>>>>> just that it isn't the default?
>>>>
>>>>Name change isn't part of the marriage process, and if you ask for a
>>>>generic name change, independent of that, you need to give a reason, and
>>>>marriage is not enough of a reason. Or so I've been told.
>>>>
>>>>My feeling is that the bureaucracy simply wants to file a person under
>>>>their birth name forever for simplicity's sake. Even though my wife had
>>>>legally changed her name upon marriage when we arrived here, they wanted
>>>>her "birth name" on the health insurance card, for example. "You can add
>>>>your married name as an addendum".
>>>
>>> I've known several women who didn't change their last name to their
>>> husband's when they were married, usually because they were
>>> professionally known by their birth name.
>>
>>That you even say it this way dates you. For more and more younger
>>people, there isn't even a "default way" and "the exception" any more,
>>but a range of possibilities what two people could do with their names
>>if they marry.
>
> You continue that passive-aggressive style of suggesting the negative
> without actually coming out with it.
>
> I didn't say anything about a "default" or "exceptions". I stated
> what my own experiences have been with "several" people. Anything
> above that does not follow just >> is not something I wrote. Just
> those 3 lines.

Interesting what you read about yourself into a post in which I was
clearly addressing Ken as "you".
> As far as being "dated",

The other main thing I'll react to, since it's an English usage point,
is that "xy dates you" isn't a value judgment. It just means "that
suggests that you are of a certain age", nothing more. I see statements
of the type "if you know this song/ad/product ... that dates you" all
the time, and they don't imply anything negative about a person.

The word "dated" wasn't in my post.

> I don't give that much, if any, thought, and would be more inclined to
> notice what they've done with their name because I'm listening to them
> and not trying to project an image.

Really? You show a rather strong reaction to what my answer to someone
else, no less, suggest about you (in your mind).

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On Wed, 11 May 2022 17:24:49 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 13:47:27 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Ken Blake:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 10:31:37 -0400, Quinn C
>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>* Adam Funk:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-05-10, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Lewis:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <uijqakenhi68$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 18:12:30 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Rankin is a "must read" author for me, and I've read every book he's
>>>>>>>>>>>written.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So have I.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reading on his Wikipedia page "He lives in Edinburgh with his wife,
>>>>>>>>> Miranda (née Harvey)", I thought for a moment that she had changed her
>>>>>>>>> name from Harvey to Miranda. I might know too many people at this point
>>>>>>>>> who've done this kind of change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very odd thing to think. Have you not seen née before?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, it has a lot to do with "Harvey" being a common first name. It
>>>>>>> would never have happened with "Smith".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> née: originally called; born (used in giving a married woman's maiden
>>>>>>>> name after her surname): Mary Toogood, née Johnson.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But why should it be limited to women who changed their name upon
>>>>>>> marriage? To single that one case of name change out seems outdated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I live in a place where changing your last name upon marriage has not
>>>>>>> been offered by the law for 50 years, so some people do forget about
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "not been offered" = the wife cannot change surname on marriage, or
>>>>>> just that it isn't the default?
>>>>>
>>>>>Name change isn't part of the marriage process, and if you ask for a
>>>>>generic name change, independent of that, you need to give a reason, and
>>>>>marriage is not enough of a reason. Or so I've been told.
>>>>>
>>>>>My feeling is that the bureaucracy simply wants to file a person under
>>>>>their birth name forever for simplicity's sake. Even though my wife had
>>>>>legally changed her name upon marriage when we arrived here, they wanted
>>>>>her "birth name" on the health insurance card, for example. "You can add
>>>>>your married name as an addendum".
>>>>
>>>> I've known several women who didn't change their last name to their
>>>> husband's when they were married, usually because they were
>>>> professionally known by their birth name.
>>>
>>>That you even say it this way dates you. For more and more younger
>>>people, there isn't even a "default way" and "the exception" any more,
>>>but a range of possibilities what two people could do with their names
>>>if they marry.
>>
>> You continue that passive-aggressive style of suggesting the negative
>> without actually coming out with it.
>>
>> I didn't say anything about a "default" or "exceptions". I stated
>> what my own experiences have been with "several" people. Anything
>> above that does not follow just >> is not something I wrote. Just
>> those 3 lines.
>
>Interesting what you read about yourself into a post in which I was
>clearly addressing Ken as "you".

Clearly? Your comment was directly under my comment. If it was
intended for Ken, then put it under Ken's comment.
>
>> As far as being "dated",
>
>The other main thing I'll react to, since it's an English usage point,
>is that "xy dates you" isn't a value judgment.

Of course it is. It refers to the person's thinking as
dated...old-fashioned, behind the times, having not progressed.

It does so particularly when the full version is quoted, not the
abbreviated version deleting "the fact that you say it that way".

>It just means "that
>suggests that you are of a certain age", nothing more. I see statements
>of the type "if you know this song/ad/product ... that dates you" all
>the time, and they don't imply anything negative about a person.

You can't be that dense. When you write "That you even say it this
way dates you", that's an observation on the person's thinking
process, not their year of birth.

"The fact that you know this..." could refer simply to age, but "say
it this way" indicates a thought process.
>
>The word "dated" wasn't in my post.
>
>> I don't give that much, if any, thought, and would be more inclined to
>> notice what they've done with their name because I'm listening to them
>> and not trying to project an image.
>
>Really? You show a rather strong reaction to what my answer to someone
>else, no less, suggest about you (in your mind).

The reaction was based on where you chose to place the comment.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

* Tony Cooper:

> On Wed, 11 May 2022 17:24:49 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 13:47:27 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>* Ken Blake:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 10:31:37 -0400, Quinn C
>>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>* Adam Funk:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-10, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Lewis:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <uijqakenhi68$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 18:12:30 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Rankin is a "must read" author for me, and I've read every book he's
>>>>>>>>>>>>written.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So have I.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reading on his Wikipedia page "He lives in Edinburgh with his wife,
>>>>>>>>>> Miranda (née Harvey)", I thought for a moment that she had changed her
>>>>>>>>>> name from Harvey to Miranda. I might know too many people at this point
>>>>>>>>>> who've done this kind of change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Very odd thing to think. Have you not seen née before?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, it has a lot to do with "Harvey" being a common first name. It
>>>>>>>> would never have happened with "Smith".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> née: originally called; born (used in giving a married woman's maiden
>>>>>>>>> name after her surname): Mary Toogood, née Johnson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But why should it be limited to women who changed their name upon
>>>>>>>> marriage? To single that one case of name change out seems outdated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I live in a place where changing your last name upon marriage has not
>>>>>>>> been offered by the law for 50 years, so some people do forget about
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "not been offered" = the wife cannot change surname on marriage, or
>>>>>>> just that it isn't the default?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Name change isn't part of the marriage process, and if you ask for a
>>>>>>generic name change, independent of that, you need to give a reason, and
>>>>>>marriage is not enough of a reason. Or so I've been told.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My feeling is that the bureaucracy simply wants to file a person under
>>>>>>their birth name forever for simplicity's sake. Even though my wife had
>>>>>>legally changed her name upon marriage when we arrived here, they wanted
>>>>>>her "birth name" on the health insurance card, for example. "You can add
>>>>>>your married name as an addendum".
>>>>>
>>>>> I've known several women who didn't change their last name to their
>>>>> husband's when they were married, usually because they were
>>>>> professionally known by their birth name.
>>>>
>>>>That you even say it this way dates you. For more and more younger
>>>>people, there isn't even a "default way" and "the exception" any more,
>>>>but a range of possibilities what two people could do with their names
>>>>if they marry.
>>>
>>> You continue that passive-aggressive style of suggesting the negative
>>> without actually coming out with it.
>>>
>>> I didn't say anything about a "default" or "exceptions". I stated
>>> what my own experiences have been with "several" people. Anything
>>> above that does not follow just >> is not something I wrote. Just
>>> those 3 lines.
>>
>>Interesting what you read about yourself into a post in which I was
>>clearly addressing Ken as "you".
>
> Clearly? Your comment was directly under my comment. If it was
> intended for Ken, then put it under Ken's comment.

The only part written by you in the whole mess above was "Rankin is a
must read author ...", and that's clearly visible even now.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On 11-May-22 21:34, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 11-05-2022 kl. 21:08 skrev Sam Plusnet:
>> On 11-May-22 18:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes:
>>>> On 11 May 2022 16:53:02 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> fi·an·cé   A   man engaged to be married.
>>>> Yes, I know.
>>>
>>>    Yes, I knew.
>>>
>>>    I wrote it for the English learners reading this group.
>>
>> Interesting.
>> I assumed that the "English learners" each start a thread by asking a
>> question, and only ever look at the responses to those specific
>> questions.
>>
>> I don't recall any occasions when they have popped up in an existing
>> thread to ask a question. (Or is my recall faulty?)
>
> I have been known to do so from time to time.
> (Still learning after 50 years or so)

On that basis, we must all confess to being learners - and the words
lose all meaning.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Wed, 11 May 2022 18:03:05 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 May 2022 17:24:49 -0400, Quinn C
><lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 13:47:27 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>* Ken Blake:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 10:31:37 -0400, Quinn C
>>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>* Adam Funk:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-10, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Lewis:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <uijqakenhi68$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 18:12:30 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Rankin is a "must read" author for me, and I've read every book he's
>>>>>>>>>>>>written.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So have I.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reading on his Wikipedia page "He lives in Edinburgh with his wife,
>>>>>>>>>> Miranda (née Harvey)", I thought for a moment that she had changed her
>>>>>>>>>> name from Harvey to Miranda. I might know too many people at this point
>>>>>>>>>> who've done this kind of change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Very odd thing to think. Have you not seen née before?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, it has a lot to do with "Harvey" being a common first name. It
>>>>>>>> would never have happened with "Smith".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> née: originally called; born (used in giving a married woman's maiden
>>>>>>>>> name after her surname): Mary Toogood, née Johnson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But why should it be limited to women who changed their name upon
>>>>>>>> marriage? To single that one case of name change out seems outdated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I live in a place where changing your last name upon marriage has not
>>>>>>>> been offered by the law for 50 years, so some people do forget about
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "not been offered" = the wife cannot change surname on marriage, or
>>>>>>> just that it isn't the default?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Name change isn't part of the marriage process, and if you ask for a
>>>>>>generic name change, independent of that, you need to give a reason, and
>>>>>>marriage is not enough of a reason. Or so I've been told.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My feeling is that the bureaucracy simply wants to file a person under
>>>>>>their birth name forever for simplicity's sake. Even though my wife had
>>>>>>legally changed her name upon marriage when we arrived here, they wanted
>>>>>>her "birth name" on the health insurance card, for example. "You can add
>>>>>>your married name as an addendum".
>>>>>
>>>>> I've known several women who didn't change their last name to their
>>>>> husband's when they were married, usually because they were
>>>>> professionally known by their birth name.
>>>>
>>>>That you even say it this way dates you. For more and more younger
>>>>people, there isn't even a "default way" and "the exception" any more,
>>>>but a range of possibilities what two people could do with their names
>>>>if they marry.
>>>
>>> You continue that passive-aggressive style of suggesting the negative
>>> without actually coming out with it.
>>>
>>> I didn't say anything about a "default" or "exceptions". I stated
>>> what my own experiences have been with "several" people. Anything
>>> above that does not follow just >> is not something I wrote. Just
>>> those 3 lines.
>>
>>Interesting what you read about yourself into a post in which I was
>>clearly addressing Ken as "you".
>
>Clearly? Your comment was directly under my comment. If it was
>intended for Ken, then put it under Ken's comment.

I doesn't happen often that I agree with Quinn rather than you, but
this is one of those times. He was clearly addressing me, not you, as
"you."

His comment was directly under *my* comment, not yours. The reason for
your error is that my comment and yours were almost identical.

On 12/05/22 05:08, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 11-May-22 18:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes:
>>> On 11 May 2022 16:53:02 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
>>> wrote:
>>>> fi·an·cé A man engaged to be married.
>>> Yes, I know.
>>
>> Yes, I knew.
>>
>> I wrote it for the English learners reading this group.
>
> Interesting. I assumed that the "English learners" each start a
> thread by asking a question, and only ever look at the responses to
> those specific questions.
>
> I don't recall any occasions when they have popped up in an existing
> thread to ask a question. (Or is my recall faulty?)

Don't forget the lurkers. Apparently there used to be many in AUE:
people who wanted to read the group but didn't feel confident enough in
English to post anything. (But I've forgotten how I found that out.)

I have no idea whether we still have lurkers.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 12/05/22 02:45, Ken Blake wrote:

> I've known several women who didn't change their last name to their
> husband's when they were married, usually because they were
> professionally known by their birth name.

My wife is one of those. She is considering changing her name after
retirement.

(Theoretically she's already retired, but because of a nurse shortage
she keeps getting offered new contracts.)

My ex-wife had rather stronger feelings on the matter. As a Belgian, she
was used to a system where one's original name continues to be the main
legal name, even though most women are known socially by their husband's
name. She didn't accept that under Australian law marriage could
extinguish her original name. I was sympathetic to that.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 12-May-22 0:31, Peter Moylan wrote:

> Don't forget the lurkers. Apparently there used to be many in AUE:
> people who wanted to read the group but didn't feel confident enough in
> English to post anything. (But I've forgotten how I found that out.)
>
> I have no idea whether we still have lurkers.

Anyone who is limbless - raise your right hand.

--
Sam Plusnet

Ken Blake formulated the question :
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 07:03:36 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-10 23:18, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <t5ff9p$qim$1@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
>>> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/05/22 12:40, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <t5f13t$b48$1@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
>>>>> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with "Quinn, né Oliver".
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be confusing to anyone who is not a francophone, since the
>>>>> word is née and wtf is né?
>>>
>>>> French adjectives inflect for gender,
>>>
>>> Yes, I know, thus "confusing to anyone who is not a francophone".
>>>
>>>> We can say that it's naturalised into English once everyone stops
>>>> writing the accent.
>>>
>>> Résumé puts paid to that.
>>
>> Certainly not in my English. I seldom see it written with any accent
>> marks at all.
>
>
> Same for me.

I see both, although the one that continues is IME more common, maybe
75%.

/dps

--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)

After serious thinking Sam Plusnet wrote :
> On 11-May-22 11:09, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 11/05/22 19:30, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-11, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 11/05/2022 6:55 am, Hibou wrote:
>
>>>>> It's difficult to have everyone agree.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not.
>>>
>>> Oh yes it is.
>>
>> Behind you!
>
> Leave my behind out of this.

He's apt to give you a bum steer.

/dps "or a welfare queen cow"

--
As a colleague once told me about an incoming manager,
"He does very well in a suck-up, kick-down culture."
Bill in Vancouver

On Thu, 12 May 2022 09:31:12 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 12/05/22 05:08, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 11-May-22 18:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes:
>>>> On 11 May 2022 16:53:02 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> fi·an·cé A man engaged to be married.
>>>> Yes, I know.
>>>
>>> Yes, I knew.
>>>
>>> I wrote it for the English learners reading this group.
>>
>> Interesting. I assumed that the "English learners" each start a
>> thread by asking a question, and only ever look at the responses to
>> those specific questions.
>>
>> I don't recall any occasions when they have popped up in an existing
>> thread to ask a question. (Or is my recall faulty?)
>
>Don't forget the lurkers. Apparently there used to be many in AUE:
>people who wanted to read the group but didn't feel confident enough in
>English to post anything. (But I've forgotten how I found that out.)

Back when Groups were shiny and new, the "newspapers"
might occasionally feature commentary about Groups. I think
that is how I learned about a very entertaining group which
consisted (mainly) of posts from a lab doing research with a
colony of lemurs. I think I read it for a couple of years; I think
their posting eventually ended.

Anyone can count the number of posts and people who post;
ISPs must have provided numbers on how many downloaded
about lemurs.

I remember that there used to be regular posts about how many
people/posts there were to aue. I also remember various comments,
over time, about how many lurkers there probably were for various
sorts of groups. IIRC, aue was expected to have 10 or 20 times as
many lurkers than posters.

Does a single post remove the "lurker" qualification? - I read aue
for years before I posted to aue as often as once a month. - I was
posting several times a day to give advice on statistics and SPSS,
in groups with those interests.

>
>I have no idea whether we still have lurkers.

I expect few; but a few.

--
Rich Ulrich

Wed, 11 May 2022 09:45:54 -0700: Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
scribeva:
>I've known several women who didn't change their last name to their
>husband's when they were married, usually because they were
>professionally known by their birth name.

At least in the Netherlands, contrary to popular belief, even here,
nothing changes as a result of marriage, names remain the same. What
happens is both spouses have _the right_ to use the surname of the
other one. Whether or not they actually do that, and when, is up to
them.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

In message <tupn7hdmi5vi66n4bdbtr4apuldhho6gpi@4ax.com> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 10:31:37 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>>* Adam Funk:
>>
>>> On 2022-05-10, Quinn C wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Lewis:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <uijqakenhi68$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 18:12:30 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rankin is a "must read" author for me, and I've read every book he's
>>>>>>>>written.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So have I.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Reading on his Wikipedia page "He lives in Edinburgh with his wife,
>>>>>> Miranda (née Harvey)", I thought for a moment that she had changed her
>>>>>> name from Harvey to Miranda. I might know too many people at this point
>>>>>> who've done this kind of change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very odd thing to think. Have you not seen née before?
>>>>
>>>> First, it has a lot to do with "Harvey" being a common first name. It
>>>> would never have happened with "Smith".
>>>>
>>>>> née: originally called; born (used in giving a married woman's maiden
>>>>> name after her surname): Mary Toogood, née Johnson.
>>>>
>>>> But why should it be limited to women who changed their name upon
>>>> marriage? To single that one case of name change out seems outdated.
>>>>
>>>> I live in a place where changing your last name upon marriage has not
>>>> been offered by the law for 50 years, so some people do forget about
>>>
>>> "not been offered" = the wife cannot change surname on marriage, or
>>> just that it isn't the default?
>>
>>Name change isn't part of the marriage process, and if you ask for a
>>generic name change, independent of that, you need to give a reason, and
>>marriage is not enough of a reason. Or so I've been told.
>>
>>My feeling is that the bureaucracy simply wants to file a person under
>>their birth name forever for simplicity's sake. Even though my wife had
>>legally changed her name upon marriage when we arrived here, they wanted
>>her "birth name" on the health insurance card, for example. "You can add
>>your married name as an addendum".

> I've known several women who didn't change their last name to their
> husband's when they were married, usually because they were
> professionally known by their birth name.

Yes, and many women DO change their legal name, but keep their
professional name as well.

Certainly anyone who has published peer-reviewed papers is foolish to
change their name.

My wife an I each changed our legal names when we were married, but even
now that's unusual.

--
The fact that Bob and John are married does nothing to diminish
anyone else's marriage any more than a black woman marrying a
white man, a Jew marrying a Catholic, or an ugly Lyle marrying a
Pretty Woman

In message <425o7hpcsi9a19v70ild10g5eju3huq220@4ax.com> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> No. When a woman marries in the US there's no legal reason for her to
> adopt her husband's last name or to retain her own last name.

However, it WILL cause issues. For example, a friend of mine is married,
but they his wife did not change her name, Several companies have
refused (or claimed it was impossible) to have them marked as 'married',
including their power utility. Another was Blizzard. I don't recall the
others, but it's been an annoyance for them.

Schools are also often a problem, but there it is more a matter of them
simply ignoring her name and referring to her by her husbands name.

> I put "legal" in quotes because "legal" is used to mean "what's on
> record". A woman can legally change her name by getting a new
> driver's license using her married name, because - for many purposes -
> that's what's now on record. She can also change her last name by
> notifying the Social Security Administration. She can also change
> her name on bank accounts, credit cards, and that sort of thing. She
> can change her last name with her employer so future paychecks bear
> her new name.

And passport as well, of course.

--
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso

In message <2qjyh5ie20kw$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> * Ken Blake:

>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 10:31:37 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Adam Funk:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-05-10, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * Lewis:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <uijqakenhi68$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 18:12:30 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rankin is a "must read" author for me, and I've read every book he's
>>>>>>>>>written.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So have I.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reading on his Wikipedia page "He lives in Edinburgh with his wife,
>>>>>>> Miranda (née Harvey)", I thought for a moment that she had changed her
>>>>>>> name from Harvey to Miranda. I might know too many people at this point
>>>>>>> who've done this kind of change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very odd thing to think. Have you not seen née before?
>>>>>
>>>>> First, it has a lot to do with "Harvey" being a common first name. It
>>>>> would never have happened with "Smith".
>>>>>
>>>>>> née: originally called; born (used in giving a married woman's maiden
>>>>>> name after her surname): Mary Toogood, née Johnson.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why should it be limited to women who changed their name upon
>>>>> marriage? To single that one case of name change out seems outdated.
>>>>>
>>>>> I live in a place where changing your last name upon marriage has not
>>>>> been offered by the law for 50 years, so some people do forget about
>>>>
>>>> "not been offered" = the wife cannot change surname on marriage, or
>>>> just that it isn't the default?
>>>
>>>Name change isn't part of the marriage process, and if you ask for a
>>>generic name change, independent of that, you need to give a reason, and
>>>marriage is not enough of a reason. Or so I've been told.
>>>
>>>My feeling is that the bureaucracy simply wants to file a person under
>>>their birth name forever for simplicity's sake. Even though my wife had
>>>legally changed her name upon marriage when we arrived here, they wanted
>>>her "birth name" on the health insurance card, for example. "You can add
>>>your married name as an addendum".
>>
>> I've known several women who didn't change their last name to their
>> husband's when they were married, usually because they were
>> professionally known by their birth name.

> That you even say it this way dates you.

Not at all.

> For more and more younger people, there isn't even a "default way" and
> "the exception" any more, but a range of possibilities what two people
> could do with their names if they marry.

This is just not true. It is still the case that the vast majority of
women change their last names when they marry. Sometimes several times
if they go through several husbands. The ones who do not are more common
than they were, but are still a small percentage

--
Anybody who tells me what happens to me after I'm dead is either a
liar or a fool because they DON'T KNOW

In message <t5gai6$ua6$1@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/05/22 21:48, Janet wrote:
>> In article <t5ff9p$qim$1@dont-email.me>, peter@pmoylan.org.invalid
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 11/05/22 12:40, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <t5f13t$b48$1@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
>>>> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with "Quinn, né Oliver".
>>>>
>>>> It would be confusing to anyone who is not a francophone, since
>>>> the word is née and wtf is né?
>>>
>>> French adjectives inflect for gender, so né is masculine and née
>>> is feminine. I've seen both forms imported into English - although
>>> the feminine one is obviously more common - sometimes with and
>>> sometimes without the acute accent.
>>>
>>> We can say that it's naturalised into English once everyone stops
>>> writing the accent.
>>
>> In BrE, the gender distinction between nee and ne is as commonly
>> recognised as that between fiancee/fiance. With or without accent.
>>
>> Chauffeur/chauffeuse, maitre/maitresse are still recognisable

> In AmE, I understand, the only adjective that inflects for gender is
> blond/blonde. Strangely this is not a word that inflects for gender in BrE.

And I think that is dying out, with 'blonde' becoming the default even for a
man with blond hair.

Or at least I've seen it quite a lot more in recent years than, say, 20
years ago.

--
BILL: I can't get behind the Gods, who are more vengeful, angry, an dangerous
if you don't believe in them!
HENRY: Why can't all these God just get along? I mean, they're omnipotent and
omnipresent, what's the problem?

On 12/05/22 15:11, Lewis wrote:

> Anybody who tells me what happens to me after I'm dead is either a
> liar or a fool because they DON'T KNOW

I believe I know. Cremation.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

In message <je2argFebpiU1@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> Does Stefan seriously imagine that there are people here who don't know
> all that?

Probably.

--
And she was looking at herself And things were looking like a movie
She had a pleasant elevation She's moving out in all directions

Le 11/05/2022 à 17:40, Ken Blake a écrit :
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 22:35:18 +1000, Peter Moylan
>>
>> In AmE, I understand, the only adjective that inflects for gender is
>> blond/blonde. Strangely this is not a word that inflects for gender in BrE.
>
> I don't know about BrE, but in AmE, it used to, but very rarely does
> these days.
>
> Is it the only adjective that does (did?)? I don't know.

In the past, I think there was an assumption that educated people knew
French, in Britain at least; it was, after all, the international
language. There are, for example, short untranslated passages of French
in Charlotte Brontë's 'The Professor' (1857):

"A servant here entered:-
"'Mdlle. Henri - Mdlle. Reuter vous prie de vouloir bien conduire
la petite de Dorlodot chez elle, elle vous attend dans le cabinet de
Rosalie la portiere - c'est que sa bonne n'est pas venue la chercher -
voyez-vous.'
"'Eh bien! est-ce que je suis sa bonne - moi?' demanded Mdlle.
Henri; then smiling, with that same bitter, derisive smile I had seen on
her lips once before, she hastily rose and made her exit."

And again:

"'Que le dedain lui sied bien!' I once overheard her say to her
mother: 'il est beau comme Apollon quand il sourit de son air hautain.'"
"... 'Pour moi,' she continued, 'il me fait tout l'effet d’un
chat-huant, avec ses besicles.'"

<https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1028/1028-h/1028-h.htm>

I don't think an author would expect readers to understand such passages
nowadays.

In message <20220511083632.58169c7cbc9e737d938caec0@127.0.0.1> Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 06:58:05 +0100
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>> On 11/05/2022 6:55 am, Hibou wrote:
>> > Le 11/05/2022 à 05:49, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> French adjectives inflect for gender, so né is masculine and
>> >> née is
>> >> feminine. I've seen both forms imported into English - although
>> >> the
>> >> feminine one is obviously more common - sometimes with and
>> >> sometimes
>> >> without the acute accent.
>> >>
>> >> We can say that it's naturalised into English once everyone stops
>> >> writing the accent.
>> >
>> > It's difficult to have everyone agree.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>>
>>
> You're all individuals!

"You are all individuals."

I'm not!"

--
BILL: I can't get behind the Gods, who are more vengeful, angry, an dangerous
if you don't believe in them!
HENRY: Why can't all these God just get along? I mean, they're omnipotent and
omnipresent, what's the problem?