I know this is could not be a matter of language, but does the following phrase means an husband can take his wife's last name?

> He is survived by his wife, Susan Lea, daughter, Jennifer Lea Lampton, and son-in-law Nate Lampton (formerly Nate Haug).

@apaderno Well, I'll tell you that a husband could take his wife's last name, though I can't say I can think of any examples of that happening. It's not possible to conclude that's what happened from that snippet however, since Nate could have changed his name before marriage for unrelated reasons (e.g., not wanting something that sounds foreign) and then Jennifer added his name to hers (Lea) when they got married.

@Laurel I should have said that sentence is about Michael Logan Lampton.

@apaderno In that case, yes, him changing his last name on marriage would be my reading of it

I guess I could have asked if son-in-law is only used for the husband of one's child, but it would sound "strange" to me if son-in-law were the "inverse" of father-in-law.

(Never mind, I am confusing different words.)

I confused stepfather with father-in-law.

@apaderno My guess is that Jennifer Lea Lampton was running out of room on forms to add another surname for their children :) Lampton was a very impressive man, and I can't blame his daughter and son-in-law for wanting their children to have the Lampton name.

@ColleenV I would not blame them too. :) I just had to understand how it works in USA. In Italy, a woman doesn't change her last name when married, and her last name is not given to her children. If she wants to give her last name to her children, it is possible, but her husband's last name is not changed.

(Then, I was misunderstanding words like stepfather, stepson, father-in-law, son-in-law, etc.)