"Devi" can't be the most popular last name in India. Lots of Indians have the place of birth as last name or fathers name (eg Sundar pichai or vishwanathan Anand) with no last name technically<p>Devi is sometimes used as filler name just like kumar.<p>I would assume real last names like shah or Patel or aggrawal to be more popular
"Over 723,000 people, or one in eight Singaporeans, has this name from the Tan state of the Zhou dynasty."<p>Yeah, this is complete nonsense. The "Tan" surname is basically the hokkien/min-nan pronunciation of the chinese character 陈, which is basically pronounced Chen in mandarin and Chan in cantonese.<p>It has nothing to do with the surname 譚 which is pronounced Tan in mandarin.<p>Due to the presence of many chinese language groups in singapore (unlike hk which is predominantly cantonese or mainland china and taiwan which uses mandarin), transliterations of surnames can be tricky. The same surname 王 can be written in many ways in singapore (Ong, Heng, Wang, Wong, etc.)
If the author is here, they might want to do a small polishing in their Spanish section.<p>For Argentina, it says<p>> This literally means “son of Gonzalo,” and though you don’t meet a lot of Gonzalos walking around these days, back in medieval times you did meet a good number of Gundisalvus’.*<p>First, you absolutely meet a lot of Gonzalos - it's a <i>very</i> popular name in South America.<p>Second, and nitpicking: we can make an educated guess that the ~ez suffix means "son of". This is also seen in "Fernandez", which is "son of Fernando".<p>But then, why does Lopez mean "wolf" and not "son of the wolf"? And shouldn't "Martinez" be "Son of Martin"?
Either there used to be a lot of iron-workers (smiths) around in English-speaking areas back then, or iron-workers were especially good at making babies (and not just horseshoes).<p>If we were adopting surnames today, I'd pick Hacker over Engineerer or Softwarer or Programmer. Or maybe Forger, since it is someone who builds things. Smiths also forge.
Interesting but they are slightly off with Carl: they say it means man, whereas it's really "free man" an important distinction! Looks like they've dumbed things down a bit (as there's a similar discussion on Lopez below)