Hmm, okay, thanks for the reply. I think I'm following you, and it sounds like you're basically suggesting that I proceed with my "separate AKA's table" idea, except that it will also contain the "primary" names in addition to the AKAs. And will be called NAMES instead of AKAs. Makes sense.

And then the PEOPLE table doesn't need to actually store any names...which makes sense, although as a visual person, kind of freaks me out. 🙂

Thanks for the feedback! Anyone else? Curious if you have thoughts.