3 ms·
> and all the people from higher castes keep the signifying surnames But that's not what was said. YetAnotherNick said many of all castes are doing this.
by jolmg 6y ago
> and all the people from higher castes keep the signifying surnames
But that's not what was said. YetAnotherNick said many of all castes are doing this.
- BoorishBears 6y agoThat's literally the point... now people from all castes are doing it, so it changes something. The comment I replied to implies "why didn't the lower castes just always change their surnames", I pointed out why.
- jolmg 6y ago> The comment I replied to implies "why didn't the lower castes just always change their surnames" Not implied. I was outright asking. > I pointed out why. By adding a non-existent condition that doesn't follow and using it as a reason. That's unless you're saying that if the remaining lower-caste also used these neutral names, that would cause the upper-caste that had chosen to also adopt these neutral names to return to using the upper-caste names. What's wrong with having these neutral names be used by many of the upper-caste (as they apparently are) and also all of the lower-caste? Am I not making sense? Because that's the scenario I was asking about.