Date:  Tue, 6 Feb 1996 23:55:54 EST

From:  Larry Horn <LHORN[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU>

Subject: Re: conjoined names



Lynne complains:



>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.

Well, yes, but I'm not sure we're being MUCH sillier here than we are when we

try to fing linguistic reasons for anything else; it is our occupational

disease, after all, and who likes a null hypothesis? We do have to

acknowledge that there are independent (e.g. temporal-priority) factors

involved, and it's precisely when those factors are overridden or can be

controlled for that the interesting linguistic variables emerge.



>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".



And Peter, Paul, and Mary. And Delaney and Bonnie. And Donny and Marie.

Male-before-female.



>so, i think when we get to people, the rules fall apart. score one

>for free will?



To paraphrase the title of the Ike and Tina movie, What's Free Will Got to

Do With It? I'm afraid the ordering votes tend to be weighted.



L



P.S. It was indeed Tom and Dick Smothers. Straight man second, but I wonder

whether Tom, Dick & Harry may have played a role.