Talk:Chinese surname

Ethnic Chinese and Han people

The recent change at 14:16, 29 Oct 2004 basically equated Ethnic Chinese and Han people. I bet many minority Chinese would object to that. Kowloonese 22:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It all depends on what sense the term "Chinese" is used. Is Chinese someone who was born in China? Are people whose ancestors are from China Chinese? I was under the impression that "Chinese surname" relates to surnames of Han Chinese rather than the surname of all the ethnic groups of the People's Republic of China. That's why variations used by overseas Chinese are also included in the article. Surnames of most minorities (with certain exceptions, Koreans, for example) would have different cultural backgrounds and origins to Han surnames. Do you think a Tibetan or Uighur would characterise himself as ethnically Chinese or his surname as a Chinese surname? I'd think probably not. If you're not happy with the term ethnic Chinese then I would be happy for you to change it to "Han Chinese". --Yuninjie 23:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ethnic Chinese sounds like an oxymoron in the same way ethnic American would be. Both Chinese and American are comprised of a collection of ethnic groups. Does ethnic American refer to the native American? the discoverer like Columbus, the Italian? the king who funded the exploration, the Spanish? the first settlers, the English? If you go to Chicago, the ethnic American can mean Irish or Polish. If you go to San Jose, the ethnic American can mean Vietnamese. My point is that oxymoron does not make sense.

Before Yuan dynasty the Mongul were not Chinese. Before Qing dynasty the Manchu wre not Chinese. It is simply polically incorrect to say Chinese means Han these days. Ethnic Han is valid, but there is no such thing as ethnic Chinese. Just my opinion. Kowloonese 20:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For clarity sake, it should be Han Chinese. I cannot even figure out what's the Chinese translation of "ethnic Chinese". The term was probably invented in English in the first place. All of the Chinese terms I can think of off my head makes the distinction between ethnicity (漢,唐) and nationality (中,華).

In the language, the term "ethnic Chinese" sounds very close to Zhonghua minzu, although that means "Chinese nation". Voidvector 22:37, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

If you were right that ethnic Chinese means Zhonghua minzu, then the Manchu surname should be included. In the context of the article, the original writing was correctly saying some surnames were not Han, but then a recent change replaced Han with ethnic Chinese. That is the reason I cried foul because in my opinion, replacing "Han" with "ethnic Chinese" is plainly wrong. These two terms cannot be equivalent. Kowloonese 20:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes the terms "Han" and "ethnic Chinese" can be equivalent. For example, Han people living in Southeast Asia are frequently described as being ethnic Chinese rather than ethnic Malays, Thais etc. If there were a Tibetan living in Malaysia, you'd hardly call him or her an ethnic Chinese. --Yuninjie 23:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Yuninjie. As far as I can tell, "ethnic Chinese" is how western media used to mean Han (since most westerners have no idea what a Han person would be). For example, theyetc would describe how Tibetans and "ethnic Chinese" (Han-dominated government) are in antagonism, . But I don't read newspaper that much, so, maybe I misunderstood. --Menchi 00:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It does not matter how many examples you quote and how many counterexample I quote. The fact that this term is arguable, ambiguous, technically or politically incorrect is enough ground to add a clarification. Changing a clean cut term into an ambiguous term is the trigger for this thread of debate. I am going to add the word Han back to the sentence. Kowloonese 20:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So in that case are we including non-Han surnames in this article as well? Does the term Chinese surname include surnames of all ethnic groups in China? The introduction says that "sinicised ethnic groups" are included. What ethnic groups are sinicised? --Yuninjie 21:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess you missed my point. I only had problem with one sentence which was originally written for Han, and changed to ethnic Chinese. I reverted it to say Han again. This article is for all Chinese surnames, not just for the Han's names. The change I made was in the sentence which say that a lot of the compound surnames do not belong to ethnic Chinese. I changed it to say that compound surnames are not ethnic Han.

Yes I understand that. My problem is I now don't know the scope of this article. If it's supposed to include surnames of all ethnic groups in China, then it would be more appropriately called "Surnames in China". The article as it now stands is almost entirely focused on Han surnames, which is why referring to "non-Han" surnames is a bit problematic. I feel that the use of the terms "Chinese" and "Han" is very confusing. If "Chinese" is not equal to "Han" in the context of this article, then why isn't there any reference to surnames of non-Han ethnic groups other than the Manchu? I don't think the use of the term Chinese to refer to only Han people is politically incorrect. If anything, it is more correct since it acknowledges other cultural groups in China rather than ballooning them all under Han hegemony. How happy would a Tibetan be to be called "Chinese"?--Yuninjie 08:40, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. The article already mentioned non-Han surnames such as The Qing royal names, and other compound names like Sima etc. So the article is appropriate for covering all Chinese names (note that you and I disagree on what Chinese means, by my definite Chinese is more than Han). So according to my definition of Chinese, the article title is good. It is true that the article list many Han names, but it is a fact that none of those non-Han names would make it to the top 100 list. But they are mentioned in couple of paragraphs outside of the top 100 table. Kowloonese 20:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Move "Common Chinese Family names" table

I think we should move the "Common Chinese family names" table to a separate page. It's taking up a lot of room and seems more appropriate as one of those "List of ..." pages rather than as part of this page, which should discuss the origin, history and uses of Chinese surnames. --Yuninjie 09:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you. Let's wait a few days to see if there is any objection, then we proceed to move. -- Felix Wan 17:34, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

I am neutral. Since the table is at the bottom of the page, it does not interrupt the flow of the article that much. On the other hand, moving it to a separate page has no ill effect either. Kowloonese 22:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cantonese Romanization

Penkyamp is definitely different from Yale. The former is far more systematic and suitable for substituting sinograms than the latter. I think there are examples at the Penkyamp article illustrating how this system works.

The second column of Cantonese Romanization is neither Yale nor Penkyamp. It is the most common Romanization used by the Hong Kong Government, an unsystematic method based on Meyer-Wempe. I am changing it. -- Felix Wan 23:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Married woman's surname

Quite funny to know that sometimes placing their husbands' family names in front of theirs, never known that before!! Not common in mainland, China. :D :O --ILovEJPPitoC 13:13, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I guess the role of women in mainland China started to diverge from Chinese tradition when husbands called their wives "comrade". Such practice may no longer in use now, but it might have permanently changed the women's perception of their own identity for the last few decades. Do today's women in mainland China use their husband family name at all? 67.117.82.5 01:18, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So far as I know, women in mainland China don't use their husbands' family names at all, like my mother, retain all her full name. And I seldom hear of 'comrade' used between my father and mother. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 01:25, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How about addressing a married woman "Mrs. Huang" (黃太太), when the woman's surname is Liu, but her husband's is Huang. Does that still happen? It occurs in Taiwan and overseas. --Menchi 01:34, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's still in use. Maybe in some formal occasion, or the person knows only the man's name, or the person who's the man's friend or co-worker may use that, not sure... I don't usually hear my mom called "Mrs...", not among her friends... but that's another story, right? i think that's different from changing her surname. when filling the table or other situation, she just uses her full name without my pa's surname... not sure about that.--FallingInLoveWithPitoc 02:11, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just an additional note to this long-expired conversation: Current practice in the mainland is to call the woman "Ms. Liu" (刘女士). "Mrs" (太太) sounds a little stiff and antiquated. -- ran 03:04, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

I was not aware that Gioro meant anything in Manchu; at least that's what my instructor told me last year. Could the author provide a source? Mgmei 18:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to Aisin Gioro, Aisin means gold and the meaning of Gioro is unknown.--Jia ng 19:02, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wrote that part ;) -- I figure that my professor is one of the world experts in Manchu so I didn't do any more research into confirming what he said in class. Mgmei 20:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Matrilineal surname

I've taken out the following until I've seen some evidence of China's purported "matriarchal" past.

Interestingly, the character 姓 is disseminated as "born of woman", a reference to the matriarchal societies of ancient Chinese civilization.

I'm also finding the "born of woman" thing very questionable since I suspect that "sheng/born" is actually a pronunciation cue for the archaic pronunciation of "xing", not a meaning radical paired with "nü/woman". --MTR (严加华) 12:29, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That some of China's most ancient (prehistorical) socities, like Banshan Culture (半山) near Xi'an was matriarchal is quite a widespread view in the academic circles, AFAIK. --Menchi 19:50, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My innate suspicion of "academic circles" aside ;-), if it is, in fact, a widespread view, perhaps, then, it will be easy to provide the requested evidence. The way it is worded above, it is spoken of as if it were an obvious, well-known fact. If it belongs in the article on 姓 at all (which I question), it needs to be more properly documented than it is. --MTR (严加华) 13:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard of it as an "obvious, well-known fact" after I heard it again and again..... And no, I wasn't the person who write or ever modified the above statement you removed, so there. I never studied the details, and I tried to google and couldn't come up with the specifics. Maybe I just suck at googling, or maybe I'm just wrong all these years since a boy. Either way, good evidence would be nice. An article on that would be nice. I'll ask some Chinese Wikipedians to see what they know. --Menchi 21:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that it is called Banpo(半坡), isnt it? You should also notice it is a site of Yangshao culture(仰韶文化) ---Koyn 17:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Your fear is right! LOL! No wonder why I couldn't find anything. Yeah, if you google Banpo AND matriarchal, you get tones of stuff. --Menchi 23:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, you do get tonnes of stuff. A brief survey of it shows nothing constituting actual evidence, though. One site actually does say how the determination that it was "matriarchal" was made -- and if that is the foundation upon which this "fact" is based, then it is very shaky, to put it mildly. Is there something scholarly that supports the contention that this culture was actually matriarchal?

I think the people who lived there could hardly have names (can be written) even if Banpo did have a matriarchal period. ---yACHT nAVEL 14:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 生 is there to provide both pronunciation (xìng is pronounced like shēng) and meaning (You receive a 姓 when you 生), although the character may or may not have been a reference to matriarchy. The etymologies of a lot of Chinese characters are based on speculation and not really provable, anyway. ☞spencer195 20:01, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the speculation is... weak. 性 means "nature/quality". 姓 means "family name". 星 means "star". 腥 means "foul smell". 　醒 means "regain consciousness". There's not a lot of commonality among these by meaning, but there is by pronunciation: they all contain the 生 radical and they're all pronounced "xing" (in various tones). I don't think that's a coincidence. --MTR (严加华) 13:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, it's more of a coincidence or speculation than of reality. 姓 can surely be interpreted as "born of woman". However many references can explain the makeup of the character: we should all agree that a human was born by a female. How can the composition of the character necessarily stem from the existence of matriarchal communities but not from the human birth by a female? Furthermore the logic is only unilateral and the composition of the character should not be stretched to use as a reference or even a proof of matriarchal community, much like your biological father is a man but not any man is your father. Matriarchal community did exist in ancient and prehistoric China, which the creation and evolution of the Chinese character may be accounted for. However the use and makeup of the Chinese character cannot prove the existence of matriarchal community. 氏族 existed way before proper Chinese family names came into use: the Yellow Emperor and hir mythological successors adopted various 氏's but not family names.

And Re: MTR, Chinese characters have been evolving and changing meanings all the time so we can't just borrow the present meaning to prove something in the past: take a look at the Chinese character 乖。A kid is 乖 if one behaves; however the past meaning was treacherously clever.

A new article about Cangjie may shade light on this too. Ktsquare (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Reread above, Ktsquare. I'm the one who removed the sentence because I found its conclusion that it was the result of "born of woman" and "matriarchal societies" highly dubious. --MTR

I know but I actually referred to your comments, "I don't think that's a coincidence." and "In this case the speculation is... weak.". And I indeed meant, "it's more of a coincidence or speculation than of reality." Ktsquare (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there was a long discussion on the ancient customs about Chinese family names and clan names that modern Chinese were not aware of. The topic is not mere speculation. It is backed by many respectable papers published by scholars and historians. See the discussion on Talk:Confucius#Family_name, it has some external links to the topics. I thought more details on the topic would be added in the article. I guess it has not happened yet. Kowloonese 22:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most common surname?

Someone mentioned the most common surname in Singapore is "Xu", but my secret sources say it's "Chen", as in Taiwan. (Anglicised as "Tan")[1] How was the "Xu" factor derived, may I ask? Mandel 11:18, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)