Re: names

At 9:55:10 PM on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, Rick
McCallister wrote:

> --- On Wed, 2/25/09, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
> wrote:

[...]

>> Where can one find listed these obscure diminutives like
>> "Hitch" for "Richard" and "Bad" for "Bartholomew"?

> In any book on British surnames.

The best available is P.H. Reaney and R.M. Wilson, _A
Dictionary of English Surnames_, Oxford, 1995.

> I had a friend named Hitchmough --"Richard's meadow",
> according to her.

No, it's 'brother-in-law of Hich' or the like; the second
element is ME <maugh> 'relative by marriage', OE <ma:ge>
'female relative'.

> The -ens, -ins, I guess is possibly from -kins. And is
> that is related to Germanic kind???

As in <Hitchen(s)>, <Hitchin(s)>? From the OFr diminutive
suffixes <-un>, <-in>.

> The British really butchered first names, so for Richard,
> Richard's son, you see Higgins, Liggins, Hitchens, Riggs,
> Higgs, Dixon, Dickens, etc.

<Rigg(s)>, <Rick(s)>, <Higg(s)>, and <Hick(s)> are more
likely from the <Rickard> variant.

[...]

> Besides Badcock and Hitchcock, there's also Adcock.

From <Adam>.

[...]

> and the -kers, Akers < Adam < Akins < Adkins

<Akers> is more likely to be locative, 'dweller by a plot of
arable land' (OE <æcer>) or from a local place-name
containing the same element.

> and indeed all the -s names: Owens, Daniels, etc.

Not all: over the years there's been a tendency to add
inorganic <-s>.

> While the -son names in my family were Socts: Jackson,
> Wilson, etc. But there must be better correlations for
> this than one family

In general <-son> is more characteristic of the North of
England and <-s> of the South, but with a broad mixed band
in the middle.

Brian