Swedish Patronymics and Surnames Explained

Until the turn of the  20th century, family surnames were not in common use in Sweden. Instead, most Swedes followed a  patronymic naming system, practiced by about  90–95% of the population.  Patronymics (from the Greek  pater, meaning  father, and  onoma, for name)  is the process of designating a surname based upon the given name of the father, thus consistently changing the family surname from one generation to the next. Using Gender Distinction In Sweden,  -son or -dotter was usually  added to the fathers given name for gender distinction. For example,  Johan Andersson would be the son of Anders (Anders’ son) and  Anna Svensdotter the daughter of Sven (Svens’ dotter). Swedish sons names are traditionally spelled with a double s—the first s is the possessive s (Nils as in Nils son) while the second is the s in son. Technically, names that already ended in s such as Nils or Anders should have three ss under this system, but that practice wasnt often followed. It is not uncommon to find Swedish emigrants dropping the extra s for practical reasons, to better assimilate into their new country. Swedish patronymic son names always end in  son, and never sen. In Denmark the regular patronymic is sen. In Norway, both are used, although sen is more common. Icelandic names traditionally end in son or dotir. Adopting Nature Names During the latter-half of the 19th century, some families in Sweden began to take on an additional surname to help distinguish them from others of the same name.  The use of an extra family surname  was more common  for people who moved from the countryside into the city where long-term use of patronymics would have  resulted in dozens of individuals with the same name.  These names were often a composition of words taken from nature, sometimes called nature names.  Generally, the names were made up of two natural features, which may or may not have made sense together (e.g. Lindberg from lind for linden and berg for mountain), although sometimes a single word would make up the entire family name (e.g. Falk for falcon). Sweden passed the Names Adoption Act in December  1901, requiring all citizens to adopt heritable surnames—names that would pass down intact instead of changing every generation. Many families adopted their current surname as their hereditary family surname; a practice  often referred to as a frozen patronymic. In some cases, the family just chose a name they liked—such as a nature name, an occupational surname related to their trade, or a name they were given in the military (e.g. Trygg for confident). At this time most women who were using patronymic surnames ending in -dotter changed their surname to the male version ending in -son. One last note about patronymic surnames. If you are interested in DNA testing for genealogical purposes, a frozen patronymic does not generally go back enough generations to be useful for a Y-DNA surname project. Instead, consider a geographical project such as the Sweden DNA Project.

Running Head Written Assignment Unit 2 1. Psyc 1111...

Running head: WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT UNIT 2 1 Psyc 1111: Introduction to Human Psychology Written Assignment Unit 2 University of the People WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT UNIT 2 2 Introduction to Human Psychology Written Assignment Unit 2 Introduction This paper will review an article entitled â€Å"Insomnia and the Performance of US Workers: Results from the America Insomnia Survey† that appeared in Vol. 34 of the journal SLEEP. The lack of sleep has been shown to â€Å"have significant negative psychological and physiological consequences† for people, and hence a better understanding of the impact of sleep deprivation is important in promoting overall wellbeing (Openstax 2014: 116). This paper will therefore review the aforementioned article and assess the†¦show more content†¦Methods The study took place between October 2008 and July 2009 and consisted of a stratified probability sample of 10094 adults belonging to a large US commercial health plan (Ibid. 1162). The sample was selected to be broadly representative of the overall population, with additional requirements being access to a telephone (with no impediments to speaking over the phone) and ability to speak and understand English (Ibid.). Of the total respondents, 7428 were either employed or self-employed and therefore eligible to participate in the study (Ibid.). The cooperation rate of respondents was 65% (Ibid.). Analysis of the results was done using linear regression analysis, specifically to estimate associations of insomnia with work performance while controlling for sociodemographics and comorbid conditions (Ibid. 1163). Results of the Study The results of the study estimated the prevalence of insomnia in the America Insomnia Survey to be 23.2% (Ibid. 1164). Insomnia prevalence was significantly lower among people aged 65+ (14.3%), higher among women than men (27.1% to 19.7%) and higher among respondents with either a high school or some college education (25.3% and 26.4% respectively) as compared to those with less than high school education (19.9%) or college graduates (21.5%) (Ibid.). The percentage of work hours lost due to absenteeism associated with insomnia according to the study was 7.1% of the total (slightly less than 1.5 days of absence in a

Julius Caesar An Expository Essay Example For Students

Julius Caesar An Expository Essay Throughout the play, Julius Caesar, opinions over important mattersclash. Brutus and Cassius, both senators of Rome, have two completelydifferent ways of looking at matters. Brutus, an idealist, has a more naveway of looking at things. He tends to see only the good in a person. Cassius, on the other hand, is a realist. He sees what is really there. Cassius is the lead conspirator in the play, showing that he is all forself advance. Brutus is the only one who isnt plotting to kill Caesar forselfish purposes. Brutus has the good of Rome in mind, not himself. Brutusand Cassiuss characters come out vividly in three separate arguments theyhave in the play. The first major argument they have is about killing MarcAntony, a close friend of Julius Caesar. Brutus doesnt and Cassius does. The second major argument the have is after the death of Julius Caesar. Brutus wants Antony to speak at Caesars funeral but Cassius disagrees. Thelast argument they have proves to be fatal to both Brutus and Cassius. Theydispute over battle tactics at Sardis, the Plains of Philippi. Shakespearewas wonderful at showing the high and low points of two different people,Brutus and Cassius. The first major argument that occurs in this play happens when theconspirators are deciding whether or not to kill Marc Antony. Antony is avery close friend of Julius Caesar. One could say he was riding hiscoattails. Cassius sees Antony as a threat to their purpose, and of course,wants him gone because he is only after his own advancement. Cassius alsoknows that if Julius Caesar is killed, Antony will avenge his death by anymeans possible. Antony has Caesars army pretty much in his power, andcould give the combined troops of Brutus and Cassius a run for their money. He knows that Antony is power hungry. In Cassiuss mind, Antony will useany leverage he can get to gain power. He has already ridden the coattailsof Caesar to get to the stage he is presently at, and that he will useCaesars death to overthrow the conspirators and move higher up into power. Since Cassius is a realist, he sees people for what they are, not for whatthey appear to be. He sees Antony as an opportunist and very intelligent. He knows that Antony covers up his intelligence by being a reveler, or aplayboy. Cassius believes Antony should be killed; just to be sure thereare no complications after the murder of Julius Caesar. Brutus completelydisagrees with Cassius. Brutus cant see past the faade Antony puts up. Hethinks that Antony is an unintelligent reveler. Brutus thinks Antony wontdo anything about Caesars death, that he will accept it, as the whole ofRome would, after being explained. Brutus also doesnt want the episode tolook like a bloodbath. He doesnt want to unnecessarily kill anyone. Hewants the death of Julius Caesar to be thought of as a purging ratherthan a murder. After all, Brutus thinks he is saving Rome of a dictator. Hewould kill Antony also if he thought he had any power to rise up againstthe conspirators. Brutus also thinks that if Antony is so attached toCaesar and is so hurt by his loss, that he will commit suicide to be withhim. In my opinion, Brutus is a little too nave. He is blind t o the factthat Antony is hiding being the mask of a playboy. Cassius seems to knowand understand Antony better. He sees right through the faade. In a caseso sensitive as this, I would side with Cassius to be safe. To side withBrutus would be like diving into a pool, not knowing how deep it is. Catcher in the Rye - Holden Caulfield EssayCassius, overall, believes if they wait on the mountain for the enemy tocome to them, they will still be rested, while the foe is worn out from thehike up the mountain. They will still have the land advantage and theknowledge of the area. Reflecting over the argument, I would side withCassius again. Even though having a psychological advantage against theopposition is a great thing to have, a well-rested army is needed just asmuch. If they know the land well, and the forces are healthy, they have amuch better chance of coming out victorious than if they march all the waydown the mountain to fight in an open battlefield. It seems as if Brutuswasnt thinking clearly, or he was stuck on the other, minor advantagesthey would gain going down the mountain. After Cassius finds out aboutBrutuss wifes death, he doesnt want to fight anymore. He doesnt wantto make matters worse for Brutus by quarreling with him further, so he gavein. Pathetic fallacy also had a role in his surrender to Brutus. His camphad an eagle visiting every day for a couple of weeks. This is a good sign. When the eagle didnt come back, and scavengers like crows and hawks tookits place, Cassius believed something was up. Much like an owl in the cityin the daytime, the presence of scavengers in a camp is a bad omen. Cassiusalso mentions that it was his birthday, and he just didnt have a goodfeeling about anything. At the end of the play, both Cassius and Brutuskill themselves. Cassius feels he has betrayed his friend, and Brutusrefuses to be caught by Antonys army. I have actually caught myself thinking about what mightve happenedif Cassius hadnt given into Brutus on one or more of the disagreements. How would things have changed if just one time he hadnt given in? Wouldthey have had to go through the entire ordeal with the crowds if they wouldhave knocked off Antony at their first disagreement? If they let Antonylive, but not speak at the funeral, would they have had to flee the cityafter their second quarrel? If they waited on the mountain for the opposingforces to come to them, would they have won the war, or at least postponedtheir defeat? It all comes down to an idealist and a realist. 1/07/04