>>What is it about a final 's' in a British surname that indicates a Germanic origin? > I don't know much about words of Germanic origin, but I do know that the > final -s- also often indicates "descendant or son of..." in Welsh and > other languages (i.e., Jones - "John's son"). In this case (MULLINS), > in "A Dictionary of Surnames" by Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges, is > listed as definitely English and is one of several variations of the > name MULLEN, meaning someone who lived by a mill, or an occupational > name for a miller, originating from the Anglo-Norman French word > "mo(u)lin, mulin" (mill). > Barbara Thanks, Barbara. May I ask the same sort of question as I asked about location-names? Exactly what dialectal influence was it, and where in the British Isles (or the earlier Germanic world, I guess), that caused people to call themselves (or be called by their neighbours) by the possessive? I mean, somebody who lived near the shallow part of a river was called SHIELDS, according to a dictionary quoted earlier. Presumable that was in a different part of the country/culture from the part that gave Will's family the name Wills. So which parts of the country/culture are we talking about? If Mullins was originally Mullin's, and the name was given to a miller by occupation, how do we KNOW the first Mullin was a miller? Or are we just presuming because of the name? Another question is this. -n was a common plural-form in the Olden Tymes. So was the first Mullin a family of Mullins? Or is the -n not a plural at all or an adjectival suffix, which in other circumstances might have caused the name to be written Mull-ine or Mull-an? As I ask this, I realise the question looks frivolous; but it really isn't, because it goes to the root of the matter. We presume a miller was called MILLER, because a miller is someone who mills for a living, and vice versa. But why would his family not be called MILLEREN or MILLERS? There is some anomalies here that I for one would appreciate advice and comment on. Do the compilers of surname-dictionaries offer any proof that an ignorant old auditor can take to the bank? I have to assume they do, and I would like to know what it is. Old auditors do not like anomalies. It was unexplained anomalies that allowed Enron to make such a mess! Thank you for any help. Gordon Barlow

> > >There is some anomalies here that I for one would appreciate advice and >comment on. Do the compilers of surname-dictionaries offer any proof that >an ignorant old auditor can take to the bank? I have to assume they do, and >I would like to know what it is. Old auditors do not like anomalies. It >was unexplained anomalies that allowed Enron to make such a mess! > Well, Gordon, since I didn't write any of the books, your question leaves my head in a spin! You've asked some very pertinent questions. I'm afraid I've been just as guilty as the next in taking the books at face value, though I have often wondered where the authors got their information. There are quite a few pages of introduction in most of my source books and now that you have piqued my curiosity I will try to wade through a few of them and get back to you. Barbara

While focusing primarily on Hispanic surnames, the website has a lot to offer in the way of answers. http://home.att.net/~Alsosa/surnames.htm Elaine (who is researching Slepicka / Slepica / Chicken BECAUSE Slepicka loosely translates from the Czech to "little hen" and half my family *went* for it in the US, though I never saw one member of my family ever involved in raising chickens <grin> and as a child often wished I had a different surname) Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it. --Henry David Thoreau Hello Gordon On Saturday, May 17, 2003, you wrote >>>What is it about a final 's' in a British surname that indicates a > Germanic origin? >> I don't know much about words of Germanic origin, but I do know that the >> final -s- also often indicates "descendant or son of..." in Welsh and >> other languages (i.e., Jones - "John's son"). In this case (MULLINS), >> in "A Dictionary of Surnames" by Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges, is >> listed as definitely English and is one of several variations of the >> name MULLEN, meaning someone who lived by a mill, or an occupational >> name for a miller, originating from the Anglo-Norman French word >> "mo(u)lin, mulin" (mill). >> Barbara > Thanks, Barbara. May I ask the same sort of question as I asked about > location-names? Exactly what dialectal influence was it, and where in the > British Isles (or the earlier Germanic world, I guess), that caused people > to call themselves (or be called by their neighbours) by the possessive? I > mean, somebody who lived near the shallow part of a river was called > SHIELDS, according to a dictionary quoted earlier. Presumable that was in a > different part of the country/culture from the part that gave Will's family > the name Wills. So which parts of the country/culture are we talking about? > If Mullins was originally Mullin's, and the name was given to a miller by > occupation, how do we KNOW the first Mullin was a miller? Or are we just > presuming because of the name? > Another question is this. -n was a common plural-form in the Olden Tymes. > So was the first Mullin a family of Mullins? Or is the -n not a plural at > all or an adjectival suffix, which in other circumstances might have caused > the name to be written Mull-ine or Mull-an? As I ask this, I realise the > question looks frivolous; but it really isn't, because it goes to the root > of the matter. We presume a miller was called MILLER, because a miller is > someone who mills for a living, and vice versa. But why would his family > not be called MILLEREN or MILLERS? > There is some anomalies here that I for one would appreciate advice and > comment on. Do the compilers of surname-dictionaries offer any proof that > an ignorant old auditor can take to the bank? I have to assume they do, and > I would like to know what it is. Old auditors do not like anomalies. It > was unexplained anomalies that allowed Enron to make such a mess! > Thank you for any help. > Gordon Barlow

Your question is much too vast, and to give you a reasonably complete answer would take rather a long time! In modern English we are lucky enough to have very few conjugations and declensions (words that change spelling/suffix according to what they are doing in the sentence - subject, object etc..). We have retained this notion mostly with pronouns - he, him, his/who, whom, whose. However, old english was an extremely complex language, with grammar at least as complicated as latin!! This partly explains why suffixes/word endings can change from one name to another, although the origin is the same. The why's and wherefore's of retaining such and such a form of the word rather than another is unclear. There is also the fact that no-one ever acually wrote the vast majority of surnames. Only the rich needed to write things down, property deeds, wills and the like, and even then the spelling could vary from one document to another. The ag-lab had other problems....So we had to wait until the 18th century before any effort was made to standardise spelling - and even then surnames were not a priority! If you have done any family research you know that the spelling of a surname could depend on how good the curate's hearing was, and how good he was at decyphering the local accent! As for which parts of the country gave birth to which forms is an impossible question. There were 4 main old english dialects, Northumbrian, Mercian, West Saxon and Kentish. The West Saxon dialect is generally considered to be the "real" language, but that I think is mainly because it is the dialect used in the great majority of surviving texts. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think these differences made any important changes in names. Also remember that it was forbidden to write old english from the 1066 invasion up to about the second half of the 14th century, french was used in the king's Court and latin for church and administrative documents. Old english as such is left to itself and only used by the lowest of the lower classes. During this period all the complicated word-endings and grammar disappear because the aglabs don't know how to use them. Suddenly Chaucer starts publishing in that peculiar mixture of germanic and latin that make up the language we speak today. Finally there is absolutely no scientific proof of any of the surnames/place-names etc that appear in these dictionaries. They are compiled by very learnèd scholars, and give good justified explanations of what could perhaps be the origin, but it is impossible to go back in any real detail. Very clever authors satisfying a demand and making themselves an honest dollar. Why not? Sorry to leave you in doubt, but we can't rewrite 2000yrs of history! I've been a bit long-winded on this one so I'll be off for a pint now! Geoff