New Post
Search
Help[Facts] Latest info
in reply to a message by Nanaea
Errrrmmmm....in an issue of Nomina (Journal for the Society for the Study of Names in Britain and Ireland), fairly recent. It's been well known for a while amongst surname scholars apparently, it's just an oft-repeated myth in easy-digest surname books.
You know how it is.
You know how it is.
1
Replies
Apparently, it wasn't all that well-known to such surname scholars as Patrick Hanks (dictionaries editor for Oxford University Press), Flavia Hodges (philologist and lexicographer), and Elsdon C. Smith (now deceased but former President of the American Name Society). lol.
I'm curious as to who authored the article in Nomina.
-- Nanaea
I'm curious as to who authored the article in Nomina.
-- Nanaea
1
The Hanks and Hodges Dictionaries are nice, but not based on producing new research - they tend to be more anthologizing older work, all of which could do with a good dust off, and some proper research doing. With computers now there is the facility to actually count and track surnames in older documents - a lot of the earlier work was done on 'instinct' and overall impressions...
I'll sort out the Nomina ref. for you, but it may also be Reaney and Wilson's Dict. of English Surnames...
I know pretty much all the people who currently get published in Nomina, so I'm fairly sure that a) they are research active and b) they are reliable :)
I'll sort out the Nomina ref. for you, but it may also be Reaney and Wilson's Dict. of English Surnames...
I know pretty much all the people who currently get published in Nomina, so I'm fairly sure that a) they are research active and b) they are reliable :)
1