I think "-chan" is a diminutive of the modern "-san" and I honestly don't know what the period equivalent for the diminutive would be. Given that "-san/chan" are used even to family members, I would guess that the only time one would drop the honorific is in private - or from a social superior to an inferior in a situation in which the superior feels the need to pull rank by being deliberately rude.
"Personal name - honorific" is appropriate from family or close friends in an informal situation. I have signed notes to certain friends as "Hanae", indicating that I would be comfortable with their so addressing me. (Only one has taken the hint.) As for my Western friends, they have enough trouble keeping my names straight.
The other thing I should mention is that in period, it was considered more polite to refer to someone by a title or nickname than be so presumptuous as to use their name. You might, for instance, refer to me as The Lady Who Lives In The Green House. It's one of the reasons that documenting women's names in period is so difficult.
I did bring this up once on the JML as to whether SCA Japanese overdo the title and honorific thing in practice. The consensus was that we don't.
Probably more than you needed to know.
Date: 2008-09-20 05:55 am (UTC)"Personal name - honorific" is appropriate from family or close friends in an informal situation. I have signed notes to certain friends as "Hanae", indicating that I would be comfortable with their so addressing me. (Only one has taken the hint.) As for my Western friends, they have enough trouble keeping my names straight.
The other thing I should mention is that in period, it was considered more polite to refer to someone by a title or nickname than be so presumptuous as to use their name. You might, for instance, refer to me as The Lady Who Lives In The Green House. It's one of the reasons that documenting women's names in period is so difficult.
I did bring this up once on the JML as to whether SCA Japanese overdo the title and honorific thing in practice. The consensus was that we don't.