Ampersand

[magid]

Some couples are always X & Y. Other couples are always Y & X. And some are ambidextrous, as it were. I keep wondering why that is. Who you know first? Who you know better? (Who you're related to?) Shorter name (in syllables) first? Is it partly situational? The one with a title first? Or just an elusively-defined "it sounds better that way"? (For bi-gender couples: Always man first? Always woman first?)

Comments

[queue.livejournal.com]

I think part of the "it sounds better that way" is that pattern of stresses. Since "and" is unstressed, if a couple has one person with a one-syllable name and one person with a two-syllable name, it's likely going to sound better to have the one-syllable name first so that the pattern is stressed-unstressed-stressed-unstressed.

Also, I wonder if one person being part of a lot of couples and another person not would affect things. Say A is with B, C, and D. You would be more likely (other factors excluded) to say A&B, A&C, A&D, I think.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Stress patterns: makes sense. (I always had a hard time figuring out stresses on syllables when we learned it in school. I suspect the my general inability to deal with poetry much relates to this.)

Not sure about A always being first. Possibility: If B, C, and D are only dating A, there might be a tendency to say B&A, etc, since the couple is thereby defined earlier.

[treacle-well.livejournal.com]

For me I think it's usually either who I knew first or cadence. Sometimes it's who I'm speaking to (perhaps based on who they know better) about X & Y. I'd like to claim it's alphabetical, because that amuses me, but it's just not true.

[magid.livejournal.com]

who I'm speaking to (perhaps based on who they know better)
I can see that, though it may be tricky to distinguish at times.

Oh, and alphabetical would be fun. (If there were a couple from a non-Roman alphabet, does it go by their transliterated names, or alphabetized in their original language? (Hm. Chinese is words, rather than letters; I wonder if they have a way to alphabetize?))

[jaq.livejournal.com]

I've assumed that it was down to who I knew better or first. Don't know if that is true though.

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

If both names have the same number of syllables, it's arbitrary who I put first. As others have said, though, I also sometimes put the member of the couple that I've known longer first. Also, I frequently just refer to married couples by their last name ("I have to call the Smiths"; "I ran into the Joneses at the supermarket") for simplicity.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Just out of curiosity, what do you say with married couples who don't have the last name?

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

We usually refer to them as his-hers name/her-his name (for instance, if it's Bob Smith and Mary Jones "the Smithjoneses"; if it's Jane Platypus and John Donut, "the Platypusdonuts.")

[magid.livejournal.com]

I assume that running the last names together in either order works without having any overlaps, then. (Heh. Otherwise you might have to distinguish between "the Platypusdonuts" and the "Donutsplatypuses", which, for me, anyway, would have to migrate to "the Donutplaypusi" :-)

Of course, this leads to the question of what happens when two hyphenated-last-name people marry: further hyphenation? Pick two? Keep separate names? (and let people call you "the Smithjonesplatypusdonuts"?)

[bitty.livejournal.com]

mmmmm... donuts...

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

the "Donutsplatypuses", which, for me, anyway, would have to migrate to "the Donutplaypusi" :-)

We do that - the Pinkus family become the Pinki (not that we know any Pinki (though some of my coworkers have had it over the years), but the rule applied for other -us names), etc.

[magid.livejournal.com]

I suspect for me Pinkus family would lead to Pinki, and would then lead to the Pinkies :-).

-us –> -i, not to be confused with –ae, which would be for a female couple, I suppose :-).

[bitty.livejournal.com]

WE ARE THE RAMKOSCH.

[treacle-well.livejournal.com]

Agh... you beat me to it. I was just in the middle of writing in response to magid's question above that we call some of them dimplebottoms and some of them Ramkosches.

Except the dimplebottoms actually do have the same last name.

And the Ramkosches don't call themselves married (do they?)

[bitty.livejournal.com]

And the Ramkosches don't call themselves married (do they?)

only in the self-referential "we're like an old married couple" way.

the dimplebottom

[magid.livejournal.com]

Each of them has a reasonably distinctive first name, so I almost never think of their last name as a way to refer to the two of them. I don't remember how long it was until I actually heard their last name, even. (I suspect I'm more likely to say "dimplebottoms".)

[magid.livejournal.com]

As long as I don't have to be assimilated! :-)

(Hey, wasn't there supposed to be a "hear us roar" or something at the end?)

[bitty.livejournal.com]

eh, the weather is more whimpering today. not very roarful.

[queue.livejournal.com]

It should be roaring tonight.

[bitty.livejournal.com]

I'm choosing *not* to watch the game, because my heart can't take any more breaking this week.

[queue.livejournal.com]

It looks like the game will be rained out tonight, anyway.

[bitty.livejournal.com]

prolong my agony, why don't they.

[magid.livejournal.com]

I thought Ramkosches were not deterred by weather, by wind or rain, nor driving snow.

Or maybe not. I suspect I'd be deterred by driving snow. Creepy, having lots of little frozen hexagonal particles driving a many-tonned vehicle. Gaining the exoskeleton they all secretly desire, getting us back for crushing our footprints through virgin snow? Defiling their integrity for our base snow angels?

[bitty.livejournal.com]

You're weird, sir.

[cellio]

I think it's mostly "what sounds better", which comes down to cadence a lot of the time. I think when it sounds about the same either way I usually list the person I've known longer first, unless we're having a conversation that's focused on the other. (But if that happens, the names have already been introduced and "they" is probably appropriate.)

Thare are some couples where I'm equally likely to say the names in either order, but most of the time I think a particular ordering becomes part of the storage record, so even if "Bob and Mike" and "Mike and Bob" work equally well, I'll end up settling on one.

In thinking about it, the name with the smaller number of stresses -- which might not have the smaller number of syllables -- goes first.