The essential feature of the naming system in Palokhi is a fortuitous event which occurs in the village and which usually (though not always) concerns the conjugal family or stem family if one or both of the parents of the wife are still alive at, or close to, the time a new-born infant is given its name. This takes place when the stub of the baby’s umbilical cord drops off after it has been ligatured at birth.^[5] These events are drawn upon in a variety of ways to form the names of children.

These names, therefore, may well be regarded as “event” names. The names which parents give to their children, on the basis of such events, may be nouns, adjectives or verbs, or compounds of these. For example, the name Mi’ Zo is a compound of the Thai word miit, “knife”, (though not a loan word) and zo the Karen word for Northern Thai and Shan or, as Marlowe (1979:196) suggests, for all Tai speakers. This name was given to a boy when some Northern Thai came to Palokhi and asked the boy’s father, the blacksmith-cum-gunsmith in the village, to repair some bush knives. Another name, Khae’ By, is a compound of two terms: khae’, a loan word from the Thai khaek (“stranger”, “guest”, “foreigner”) which the karen use ethnonymically to designate non-Karen and non-Thai as in Khae’ Lisau (the Lisu) and Khae’ Hau (Haw or Yunnanese Chinese); by, on the other hand, is the generic term in Karen for “rice”. This name was given to a girl because some Lisu from Ban Lum had come to buy rice in Palokhi.^[6] A further example is Ty We, where ty means “to arrive” and we means “town”, possibly derived from the Northern Thai wiang which means the same thing although its original meaning was “fortified city” (but cf. Jones [1961:26]). This name was given to a girl when her father was accidentally shot by his eldest son and had to be sent to Chiang Mai for medical treatment.

While these examples serve to describe the essential aspects of the naming of individuals, there is however more to the way in which the naming system operates in Palokhi. Most Palokhi Karen retain the names given to them at childhood until, of course, they become parents after which they are known teknonymously. Nevertheless, it sometimes happens that individuals do have more than one name bestowed upon them by grandparents, siblings or age-mates on the basis of some personal idiosyncracy or other. These names are more in the nature of nicknames and they generally do not replace the names given to them at birth. Names may, nevertheless, be changed for specific reasons such as prolonged illness. For instance, a girl by the name of Ti Ka was sick for several months and when her parents consulted a ritual specialist, he said that apart from his ritual ministrations, her successful recovery would also depend on changing her name to a new one. Her parents renamed her Mi Sau meaning, literally, “new name”.

What is important in the Palokhi naming system is that the names, and the social identities which they represent, are formed on the basis of events which are unique or non-replicable; thus, the proper names created from such events are themselves also unique.

In an illuminating discussion on the significance of naming systems in The Savage Mind, Levi-Strauss has pointed out that proper names, or autonyms, possess an individuating function and also imply a distinction between “self” and “other” (1966:192). The discussion is instructive and the distinction is wholly appropriate in approaching the significance of the relationship between the naming system and certain kin terms in Palokhi.

In the Palokhi naming system, this individuating function of autonyms, and the “self-other” distinction is carried to the extreme. The autonyms are not drawn from a common pool of names available to all members of the society but, on the contrary, are formed from unique events. The “self-other” distinction and the distinctiveness of individual social identities in Palokhi is, therefore, highlighted by the very uniqueness of all autonyms which, incidentally, accords with a high degree of personal or individual autonomy in Palokhi. It also suggests a reason for the practice of naming children when the stub of the umbilical cord drops off: children are given names only when the last vestige of their connection with their mothers is lost, and hence acquire an identity separate from that of their mothers.

As I have mentioned before, there are two instances when autonyms are relinquished in Palokhi. The first is when a man and woman marry, and commence using the various spouse terms described. The second is the advent of parenthood, when teknonymy is used. There is an important difference in the two. In the first case, although a married couple do not use their autonyms, they are nevertheless known by their autonyms as far as others are concerned. In the second case, teknonyms replace the autonyms by which they are known to others. These two cases should, therefore, be examined separately.

If autonyms and their use, stress the individuality and the distinctiveness of social identities — the “self-other” distinction — then the abrogation of the use of autonyms upon marriage by husband and wife must be seen to stress the opposite relation, namely, a down-playing of such a distinction between spouses, as opposed to others who, nevertheless, continue to use their autonyms. In other words, the relinquishment of personal names in favour of spouse terms marks the conjunctiveness of spouse relations and the conjugal bond as against all other relations. The logic of the naming system, thus, leads us to exactly the same conclusion which was arrived at from an examination of the terminological system.

We can now turn to the question of teknonymy in Palokhi. Levi-Strauss has observed that whereas autonyms stress the individuality of persons, teknonyms and necronyms, on the other hand, are “relational” terms where the definition of “self” is derived from an “other” whose autonym forms the teknonym while necronyms effect this definition “negatively” since the names of the dead are never mentioned. Teknonymy in Palokhi is no different. The relations expressed in teknonyms are links of affiliation which are evident in teknonyms such as De’ Chaj Pa (“Father of De’ Chaj”) and De’ Chaj Mo (“Mother of De’ Chaj”). In Palokhi, however, teknonymy is extended into the second ascending generation as well (on a matrilateral basis because of uxorilocal residence at marriage), so that the parents of De’ Chaj’s mother would be known, after the birth of De’ Chaj, as De’ Chaj Phy (“Grandfather of De’ Chaj”) and De’ Chaj Phi (“Grandmother of De’ Chaj”). The point of reference in the system of teknonymy in Palokhi is, therefore, the eldest surviving child in the last descending generation.

In Palokhi, however, necronymy does not exist, so that unlike the Penan system which Levi-Strauss discusses, and which he describes as possessing three types of “periodicity” (necronym → necronym, autonym → necronym, teknonym → necronym), the Palokhi system possesses only a single “periodicity”: autonym → teknonym. Levi-Strauss has proposed that in systems characterised by these three types of “periodicity”, “teknonymy and necronymy are a single problem and amenable to one and the same solution” and that as far as teknonymy is concerned, “the reason why parents may no longer be called by their name when a child is born is that they are ‘dead’ and that procreation is conceived not as the addition of a new being to those who already exist but as the substitution of the one for the others” (1966:194-5). In a system such as that in Palokhi where teknonymy exists, but not necronymy, the significance of teknonymy is in fact otherwise. Parents revert to the system of reference and address employed prior to the birth of their first child if the child dies, and hence “avoid” the “negative” definition of “self” through necronymy. Moreover, if there are more than one child, the death of the eldest child does not mean the end of teknonymy; teknonymy then becomes based on the autonym of the next child. Furthermore, when there are three generations, the autonyms appropriated from the second generation to define the first generation teknonymously become replaced by autonyms appropriated from the third generation.

Teknonymy in Palokhi, therefore, stresses the “positive” definition of “self” in which procreation is conceived as the addition of a new being to those who already exist. The relational nature of teknonymy in Palokhi thus emphasises continuity of links of affiliation as part of an ideology which treats the conjugal bond as a reproductive association within the “continuous flux of generations” (cf. Levi-Strauss [1966:199]).

There are two other features in the naming system which are worth noting: sex differentiation and age-grading. As we have seen, autonyms or “event” names in Palokhi do not, of themselves, contain any distinction between sexes being made up, as they are, of simple verbs, adjectives or nouns. However, when they are used with respect to individuals, they are usually prefixed by sex markers in address or reference according to context. These markers are pha, for males, and nau for females.

Very generally, these markers are used together with autonyms when ego is addressing or referring to another person who is older than, or is an age-mate of, ego. Age mates of the same sex who are on intimate terms may, however, drop the marker in direct speech if they are speaking to the person concerned, or if they are referring to the person when speaking with other age-mates. The sex marker is, however, usually retained if ego is referring to an age-mate, notwithstanding the closeness of the relationship, if ego is speaking to an older person.

On the other hand, these markers are retained if ego is referring to a person who is either older than ego or an age-mate, when ego is speaking to someone younger. If, however, the person referred to is younger than ego but is of the same age as the person spoken to, or younger, then the sex marker may be dropped. The reason why relative age is a factor in these usages is that it is not uncommon for there to be wide disparities in the ages of individuals within any particular generation.

It is clear that these markers function as honorifics of sorts, but this does not obscure the fact that their primary function is to indicate the sex of the person bearing a particular autonym.

Sex marking also exists in the case of teknonyms where the kin terms pa, mo, phy and phi are prefixed to the autonyms of eldest children. These terms are, in themselves, sex-distinguished. Thus, teknonyms are not merely relational terms; they also identify the person bearing a particular teknonym by sex. At the same time, they also act as age-grade or generational markers by virtue of the fact that the kin terms express generational relationships.

It may be noted here that teknonymy is a naming system that depends on the availability of relevant genealogical information and the social field of the individuals concerned. In Palokhi, the necessary information is wholly available because the community is small. This is not necessarily the case when the Palokhi Karen deal with Karen from other villages in the area as local knowledge then tends to be less than perfect. In such circumstances, general kin terms such as phati, mygha, phy and phi would be used in address and reference. As terms of reference, they are of course extremely vague and other information would then be necessary if there is a need for precision in referring to the person concerned.