In response to your most recent responses/observations/questions.
Did these hyphenated people tell you as much?
My comment was in response to someone else’s suggestion of “professional” implications.
- … have your professional career split into pieces? "You don’t seem to have published anything before 1998. " *
I don’t think it is a huge and unwarranted assumption for me to guess that a tremendous percentage of the hyphenators I encounter do not encounter this problem. I guess this fits in with my general presumption that a bunch of folk think the rest of the world should be a heck of a lot more interested in their individuality and their accomplishements, than the rest of the world actually is.
**Since when does a kid’s preference for a name have any bearing on ANYTHING? Do you choose pediatricians based whether your kids like the name? **
Silly, silly argument. Clearly your emotions are interfering with your communication. At least I hope so.
My kids’ preferences have considerable bearing on many many things. AND I don’t have the option of selecting my kids’ teachers. AND my kids aren’t required to write their pediatricians’ cumbersome hyphenated names on each of their assignments. AND my kids will doubtfully be conducting a search of their middle school teachers’ publication history - if we want to assume that most middle school teachers have such histories. Shall I go on?
Filing is alphabetical. You would file under the first letter of the last name. Anyone who doesn’t get it may quite possibly be subliterate.
Well, I certainly won’t attempt to disavow you of the level of literacy of our office’s support staff. But riddle me this, bat-kitty. If Susie Smith-Jones advances an action on behalf of her minor child Johnny Jones, where does it get filed? It would be nice if you would enlighten the subliterate professionals and support staff I encounter all the time in courts, law offices, medical providers, and administrative bureaucracies who don’t appear to share your wisdom.
I guess there should be some universal enlightenment that informs everyone of the manner in which certain folk wish to creatively express their individuality and heritage. Yeah, that’s right.
John and Susan would work (if you are on friendly terms). Say I’m introducing you to someone at a party or such. "Bill, this is John Smith and his wife, Susan Jones."
A fine solution, as long as I know both John and Susan’s first names. Or care enough to find out. Unfortunately, I find myself occasionally having to refer to people - either in relatively formal speech or writing - who I simply don’t care enough about to research or recall their preferred mode of address. Nevertheless, I would prefer to at least convey the impression of a minimal level of courtesy. Which requires that I make assumptions.
And it seems to me that in such circumstances, courtesy would have the person who has chosen an unconventional name for themselves, to simply bear such efforts graciously. To tell the truth, in my opinion n the vast majority of circumstances, the vast majority of folk don’t care whether you are Mrs. Smith or Smith-Jones. And they are unlikely to remember either you or your appellation.
But the people who make a point of aggressively correcting a well-intentioned speaker? Well, THEM I’ll remember. Of course, not necessarily by their proper name.
I’d probably be better off saying, "This is Sue, who I work with - and some man. At least he appears to be a man. I know she’s married, but I never met the guy. So this could be a gigolo for all I know or care. Never met him before, and may well never meet him again."