Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:56:14 -0500
From: "M. Lynne Murphy" 104LYN[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]MUSE.ARTS.WITS.AC.ZA
Subject: conjoined names
i think we're just getting silly when we try to find linguistic
reasons for conjoined names. while entertainers and new companies
might decide on order according to what sounds nicer, there are going
to be too many other absolutely-non-linguistic factors involved. for
example, i grew up upstairs from parker, rayfield and murphy funeral
home. the only reason it's called that is because murphy bought it
from rayfield who bought it from parker (who founded it). same is
going to be true of law firms and stock-broking (brokering?)
companies. things like "sears and roebuck" might be determined by who
put in more money.
i do like the "straight wo/man" first theory in comedy. but it
doesn't work for "laurel and hardy", but it might explain "the
captain and tennille". in fact, that one goes against the "singer
first" rule that i think was proposed--as might "ike and tina turner"
(did ike sing?), and arguably "sonny and cher".
so, i think when we get to people, the rules fall apart. score one
for free will?