> I've glanced at some of the introduction in A Dictionary of Surnames and am told by it that > the authors did find proof of the origins of the majority of the names they list. You must remember, that most of these people have spent YEARS researching all of these names. They didn't just guess at things and stick them in a book. Patrick Hanks, alone, has been involved with the origins of names for over 25 years. I also read somewhere in this book, though I can't find it with just a quick scan, that this book took 12 years in the making. > Barbara Well, Barbara, I had better clear one thing up right away, and that is: I am NOT trying to convert you! All I want to do is satisfy MYSELF as to the truths and untruths of the origins of the surnames of the British Isles. Being a trained auditor, I am a trained skeptic who requires convincing and plausible evidence - even proof, if it exists. As a good auditor, I would not have been convinced of the truth of Enron's accounting, and I can hardly apply lower standards to the compilers of surname-dictionaries. Of course they must have discovered some "convincing and plausible evidence" of what they purvey as truth; and they would assuredly not indulge in "Enron etymology"! However, it has to be said that their evidence is elusive. All I myself have managed to find are unsubstantiated assertions by the dictionary-compilers. What better place than this Surname-origins List to post a general appeal for reports of actual evidence. "Show me the money!", as Jerry Maguire's client begged, in the movie. If I am assured that the first Mr Miller really was a miller, or lived near a mill, or had a face like a millstone, or acted the role of the mills of God in the annual village pageant - well, I need to have it explained to me what evidence exists. Every single "Peter the baker" may well have metamorphosed into Peter Baker, but when, where, why, and who says? After all, a billion people in the world believe what Christianity calls the truth, and five billion don't. A different billion believe the truths of Islam, and five billion don't. Four billion believe a variety of different truths again. Thousands of years have gone into the honing of the major faiths. But the evidence is still pretty subjective in every case, because religious faith doesn't require objective proof. Surname-origins does, I think. Gordon Barlow

Gordon, I never thought you were trying to convert me, but I think surnameology (how's THAT for a word? <G>) is something you are going to be hard pressed to find any definite proof for. Perhaps you could contact the authors (if they would be kind enough to answer your query) and ask them directly? The Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges book I have - "A Dictionary of Surnames" - was published originally in 1988 and my volume was a 1998 reprint. It was published by: Oxford University Press Great Clarendon Street Oxford ox2 6DP I just tried typing in "patrickhanks.com" as a URL and it did come up with his web site. It has a "Contact Me" button on it, so you might be able to get more info on the subject of proof from him or his staff. Good luck. Barbara Gordon Barlow wrote: >>I've glanced at some of the introduction in A Dictionary of Surnames and >> >> >am told by it that > > >>the authors did find proof of the origins of the majority of the names >> >> >they list. You must remember, that most of these people have spent YEARS >researching all of these names. They didn't just guess at things and stick >them in a book. Patrick Hanks, alone, has been involved with the origins of >names for over 25 years. I also read somewhere in this book, though I can't >find it with just a quick scan, that this book took 12 years in the making. > > >>Barbara >> >> > >Well, Barbara, I had better clear one thing up right away, and that is: I >am NOT trying to convert you! All I want to do is satisfy MYSELF as to the >truths and untruths of the origins of the surnames of the British Isles. >Being a trained auditor, I am a trained skeptic who requires convincing and >plausible evidence - even proof, if it exists. As a good auditor, I would >not have been convinced of the truth of Enron's accounting, and I can hardly >apply lower standards to the compilers of surname-dictionaries. Of course >they must have discovered some "convincing and plausible evidence" of what >they purvey as truth; and they would assuredly not indulge in "Enron >etymology"! > >However, it has to be said that their evidence is elusive. All I myself >have managed to find are unsubstantiated assertions by the >dictionary-compilers. What better place than this Surname-origins List to >post a general appeal for reports of actual evidence. "Show me the money!", >as Jerry Maguire's client begged, in the movie. > >If I am assured that the first Mr Miller really was a miller, or lived near >a mill, or had a face like a millstone, or acted the role of the mills of >God in the annual village pageant - well, I need to have it explained to me >what evidence exists. Every single "Peter the baker" may well have >metamorphosed into Peter Baker, but when, where, why, and who says? > >After all, a billion people in the world believe what Christianity calls the >truth, and five billion don't. A different billion believe the truths of >Islam, and five billion don't. Four billion believe a variety of different >truths again. Thousands of years have gone into the honing of the major >faiths. But the evidence is still pretty subjective in every case, because >religious faith doesn't require objective proof. Surname-origins does, I >think. > >Gordon Barlow > > > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > >