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? lynne --------------------------------------------------------------------- M. Lynne Murphy 104lyn[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE] Department of Linguistics phone: 27(11)716-2340 University of the Witwatersrand fax: 27(11)716-8030 Johannesburg 2050 SOUTH AFRICA