# Hindi/Urdu: surname



## desi4life

What term(s) would you use for surname or last name?  Thanks


----------



## Alfaaz

Urdu: 

In formal contexts, you might see کنیہ/کنیت - _kunyah/kunyat_. 

Apart from these, خاندانی اسم/نام - _xaandaanii ism/naam_ would probably be used colloquially.

There is also قبائلی نام - _qabaa'ilii naam_, which is usually used to refer to_ tribal name_.


----------



## nizamuddin

In Arab before name use *Abu, Bint* and in Persian *Pasar, Dhukhtar
*i.e. Abu Saeed, Bint-e-Mariyam, Dukhtar Shumaila, Bint-e-Naseem


----------



## mundiya

In Hindi, surname is "kul-naam".  Other possibilities are vansh-naam, paarivaarik naam, khaandaanii naam, aakhrii naam, antim naam.


----------



## desi4life

Thank you all.  

Using Google translate for Urdu, the two options are muxtasir naam and xaandaanii naam.  Does muxtasir naam make any sense?

Using Google translate for Hindi, two of the options are upnaam and kulnaam.  Does upnaam have any currency?

Thanks again!


----------



## mundiya

^ One of the meanings of "upnaam" is surname, but it also has many other meanings, including: nickname, pseudonym (pen name, etc.), username, and alias.  Let's see if other Hindi speakers want to give their input about this.


----------



## littlepond

I use the English word for this, but if someone were to force me to use some Hindi word, I'd use "upnaam".


----------



## mundiya

desi4life said:


> Thank you all.
> 
> Using Google translate for Urdu, the two options are muxtasir naam and xaandaanii naam.  Does muxtasir naam make any sense?
> 
> Using Google translate for Hindi, two of the options are upnaam and kulnaam.  Does upnaam have any currency?
> 
> Thanks again!



Since you haven't received a response from an Urdu speaker, I'll try answering from an Urdu perspective.  I believe the word is "muxtas*a*r", and to me "muxtasar naam" doesn't sound right because it would mean "abbreviated name" and that doesn't fit the concept of surname.  

Another option for surname in Urdu is "laqab".  Like "upnaam" in Hindi, "laqab" has a variety of other definitions too, such as nickname and title.


----------



## Alfaaz

mundiya said:
			
		

> desi4life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using Google translate for Urdu, the two options are muxtasir naam and xaandaanii naam.  Does muxtasir naam make any sense?
> 
> 
> 
> Since you haven't received a response from an Urdu speaker, I'll try answering from an Urdu perspective.  I believe the word is "muxtas*a*r", and to me "muxtasar naam" doesn't sound right because it would mean "abbreviated name" and that doesn't fit the concept of surname.
Click to expand...

 Just saw this question thanks to mundiya's post! 

As he has pointed out, the correct pronunciation is _muxtas*a*r _and _muxtasar naam _might be more appropriate for _nickname_...!?


----------



## mundiya

For what it's worth, on official/governmental forms in Hindi, I've seen surname variously listed as kul-naam, upnaam, or antim naam.


----------



## desi4life

Many thanks for the responses everyone.


----------



## marrish

I'm wondering if _aaxirii naam_ would be possible or advisable to use in formal situations where precision is needed; far better than _xaandaanii naam_. It's possible it is differently dealt with by different authorities where Urdu or Hindi is used.


----------



## Alfaaz

marrish said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if _aaxirii naam_ would be possible or advisable to use in formal situations where precision is needed; far better than _xaandaanii naam_.


 Why does_ aaxirii naam_ seem better to you marrish SaaHib?

Reason for asking: In comparison to_ xaandaanii naam_ or other suggestions, _aaxirii naam_ appears to be more of a _calque -_ which you haven't preferred in many threads of the past.


----------



## marrish

I don't consider it a calque. In English it is "surname" or "last name", both are used I believe, but the process of perhaps coining a term aims a great deal of practical range of purposes. More so, in the context of official usage something like a clear definition is needed and the [new] term should lend itself easily to practical implementation. Therefore the train of thought behind my preference for aaxirii naam is that if we place the problem inside the Urdu and Hindi population, then I wonder if H. _kul-naam_ can be answered with Rahul KUMAR, Savitri DEVI, U. _xaandaanii naam_ with Kulsuum BIBI, Javed AKHTAR, if we take U. _kunyat_ then it will not be answered with KHAN or KHOKHAR, _qabaa'ilii naam_ surely not with ZAHID, ALI etc.
While all those terms can be answered with a name that is indeed used as a surname, but not all surnames can be asked by any of those. In my opinion it is the _aaxirii naam_ which stands as the last one/one says it as the last one which is always the surname. KUMAR's, DEVI's, BIBI's, AKHTAR, KHAN, KHOKHAR, ZAHID, ALI are answer to the question "_aap kaa aaxirii naam kyaa hae?_".


----------



## Alfaaz

marrish said:
			
		

> ... if we place the problem inside the Urdu and Hindi population ...


marrish SaaHib, thanks for the illustrative answer. I hadn't thought of it from this perspective. A few more questions arise:

Wouldn't بیگم، بی بی، میاں، وغیرہ be classified as _titles_ or _prefixes/suffixes_? 
Similarly, wouldn't names on the pattern of زاہد اختر basically represent زاہد (ابن/ولد) اختر - _Zaahid (son of) Akhtar_...?
If a name is used for more than one generation as a _last name_, does it qualify as a _family name_? 
Using your examples: کشور کمار ← امت کمار؛ جاں نثار اختر ← جاوید اختر ← فرحان اختر

(I hope the questions are not annoying! The reason for asking them is purely to gain insight about the naming system/classification, which seems somewhat different from what might be commonly used in English.)


----------



## marrish

No, the questions are needed because there is a difference in the English history of surnames and approaches to it from a point of a state.
Yes, the first list as begum/begam, biibii, miyaaN etc. can all be considered titles or parts of a name. They are not prefixes or suffixes because they don't join the other word.
Yes, most probably a name as Zahid Akhtar will be a patronymic name, which for some has become a family name, carried over to next generations.
Yes, if a name is used for more than one generation as a last name it has become a family name.

In all those situations other approaches might occur. So normally the system of adopting a _surname/family name_ is a matter of different systems.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Is kul-naam a shorthand for something in Hindi because from an Urdu perspective I would have taken kul-naam to mean one's naam e kul i.e. full name and not just their surname? As a proponent of calques where necessary, I would say both Aaxir/Aaxirii naam and xaandaanii naam are perfectly fine. I don't believe we need to overcomplicate matters. In government papers even individuals who place their names in various orders are accommodated. So for instance, if their name is prefixed with a Begum, Bibi or family name like Sheikh, Mian or Chaudhry that would be their title, not too different to Lady, Lord, Sir, etc. MiiaaN is an honorific in any case, I don't believe it's a family name to begin with. If they like to add it as a suffice then they will merely add that to their last name in a manner not too different to western children opting for hyphenated surnames. But if they were asked their family name in a formal setting it would just be exactly that. Whereas individuals that prefer for their family names to be a title in government forms would have their father's name as their last name. That is how it used to be done, but nowadays most people opt for names in the western order and Chaudhry and Sheikh tends to feature at the end. If it does then that's problem solved from the perspective of any paperwork or legal duties. 

A difference can only be deciphered in some dynasties where everyone opts for the name of a grandfather to create a semblance of homogeneity. In their case, their name begins with an honorific or the name of their family or tribe and ends with not their father but their grandfather's name. So all in all our names are not too different to western names to begin with. We just don't have hyphenated middle names unless the first name is Muhammad. Even western forms give you the option of including some Eastern honorifics i.e. Sheikh, Chaudhry, etc. 

Would first name by extension be awwal/pehlaa naam? Also what is the expectation when someone asks for your good name/shubh-naam/ism shariif (a purely subcontinental concoction), are you only meant to give your first, full name or do you have the option of responding either in full or partially? I've heard people do either, and respond with either just their first name or their full name, just as they would if someone were to ask "aapkaa naam"? Could you say un kaa ism-shariif/giraamii/shubh-naam Amitabh Bachchan hai"?


----------

