But that's not what was said. YetAnotherNick said many of all castes are doing this.
The comment I replied to implies "why didn't the lower castes just always change their surnames", I pointed out why.
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.
My question was, why assign a lower-caste name to one's child if they have the option not to? But I suppose even then not all people with these lower-caste names see their surname as bad or harmful to their children, if I understood you correctly.
As someone very ignorant of that whole issue, if it's that simple, why doesn't the lower caste(s) always do that? Why "nowadays" only "many" do?