Humanities desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 13

Given names without surname derivatives

It seems there are some Russian given names whose surname derivatives, unlike the majority (such as Ivan - Ivanov, etc), are super-rare among notable persons (and quite rare if social media accounts are included), despite their equally old origin. There are Oleg, Vladislav, Vyacheslav and a few others for which surnames Olegov, Vladislavov or Vyacheslavov are almost non-existent. For Gennadiy-derived Gennadyev googling returns just two notable persons and for Nikita-derived Nikitov only one. Same goes for English names, where there's no Anthonyson, Edgarson or Benjaminson, as compared to e.g. John - Johnson, while there was only one Henryson. Why is that? Brandmeister^talk 18:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that regarding -son names in English-speaking countries doesn't necessarily derive from English first names, I think many have Nordic origins (many 'Nelsons' in US derive from 'Nilssons', many 'Parson' were 'Persson', 'Johansson' becoming 'Johnson' etc). Thus the prevalence of English male first names doesn't necessarily match English family names. --Soman (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister -- You seem to be skipping over the patronymic stage. The evolution in many cases was from given or first name to patronymic, then patronymic to surname. The modern Icelandic and Russian languages still have well-developed patronymic systems, but in Russian the patronymics end in -ich (masculine) and -na (feminine), not -ov. English has never had a thorough-going patronymic system... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't explain why some widespread names produced very few surnames, if any. As for English, it could be argued that surnames ending with -son or 's were originally patronymics, e.g. Stephen - Stephenson, the son of Stephen, or Roberts - the son of Robert. Yet there are no Henrys/Henrison or Alfreds/Alfredson for some reason. Brandmeister^talk 01:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's Harrison (name) and also Alfredson. And Benson (surname). --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames from Henry also include Henderson, Hendricks(on), Harris. —Tamfang (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I think you'll find that surnames formed from a given name + son are very much the exception rather than the rule. Given names are not generally productive. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are all kinds of names of the form given name + son. Albertson, Anderson, Benson, Carlson, Davidson, Edmondson, Frederickson, Grayson, Harrison, Jackson, Jacobson, Jameson, Johnson, Larson, Mathewson, Nelson, Olson, Paulson, Robertson, Smithson, Williamson, and on and on. This website[1] has 1,367 names ending in "son". --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Edison (from Edgar, Edward or Edwin), Hodgeson (from Roger), Wilson and Wilkinson (from William), Robson and Robinson (from Robert), Benson (from Benjamin), Thomson and Thompson (from Thomas), Anderson (from Andrew) and so on. Also the suffix "kin" also demotes a child, so Wilkin is "little William". BTW, I'm sure Olson is Scandinavian rather than English. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge many English names of this pattern are in fact of Scandinavian origin, Viking settlers in what became England had a very significant and lasting influence on English society. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is true Roger, but I suspect that most Anglo-Danes were fully Anglicised by the late Medieval period when surnames were being adopted in England. Dictionary of American Family Names says "Olson - Americanized spelling of Swedish OLSSON or Danish and Norwegian OLSEN". The name is more common in the USA and Canada, and almost half of British Olsons live in London, [2] which has been a city of migrants for several centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One factor is that the English adopted other ways surnaming in addition to patronymics… examples include naming by professions (Smith, Cooper, Carter) or by physical features near where they lived (Green, Hill, Rivers). Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; see Surname#History, Patronymic surname, Category:Occupational surnames, Toponymic surname. Also Nickname which produces surnames such as White, Cruikshanks ("crooked legs"), Wagpole, Drinkwater and Littlejohn, as well as some occupational names which were given as jokes, like King, Abbott and Bishop. For a good overview, see the introduction to A Dictionary of English Surnames Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after deeper insight, I've read that Russian names like Valentin and those ending with -slav have been either restricted to monks or suppressed by Orthodox Church as pagan, being revived only in the 19th century, meaning either none or only few surnames managed to emerge from them. Brandmeister^talk 12:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most English surnames were established in the Middle Ages, so for patronymic surnames on -s(on), one can expect a correspondence between the more common ones and the more popular medieval male given names and nicknames. I suppose Anthony, Edgar and Benjamin were not that popular. --Lambiam 21:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, we do have Benson and Edison, however Tonyson and Tennyson apparently relate to Dennis. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though possibly the most popular given names would be less likely to generate surnames. If lots of men in the village are named John, using the surname Johnson to distinguish your family from the others isn't much use. Chuntuk (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that the suffix -son is not the only patronymic form that English uses; see fitz-, for example. I would consider Geraldson to be a pretty rare surname (though certainly in existence), but Fitzgerald is common. There are probably other affixes used (Patronymic#English mentions -ing), but none that I'm familiar with. Shells-shells (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brandmeister, the short answer to your question is that the Russian names you mentioned were not popular during the period when most Russian surnames were formed (that is, the 18th and 19th centuries). The names Oleg and Vyacheslav were not used by peasants which historically constituted more than 96% of Russian population. Possibly because they were not considered properly Christian (I can't readily recall any saints with those names). These names were used in pre-Mongol Rus and then gained popularity with the urban population in the 20th century (by which time most people had acquired their surnames). Besides, the surnames are usually derived from hypocoristic forms: e.g., Slavin rather than Vyacheslavov. The name Vladislav is not East Slavic, it is adapted from Polish Władysław, so not old enough to have surnames derived from it. As for Nikita, the surname "Nikitin" is very common; see ru:Никитин for numerous examples. You should remember than the surnames derived from "-a" stems normally end with "-in" rather than "-ov" (e.g., "Pushkin" from "pushka", "Pushkov" from "pushok"). Ghirla^-трёп- 22:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Eastwood

James Eastwood was a British writer and screenwriter who has an article on the French wikipedia [3] but not this one. He wrote the novelizations of a couple of successful films starring Humphrey Bogart, namely Murder, Inc. (from the British title of The Enforcer) in 1952 and Deadline, also in 1952 (derived from Deadline – U.S.A.). He also wrote the screenplay for Devil Girl from Mars but his name is unlinked on the page. His novels were best-sellers in France and published by major publishers, but there doesn't seem to be anything concerning him later than the early 1970s. He is listed as born in 1918 with no death date, and while there's a small chance he may still be alive, would anyone be able to confirm this or provide a date of death. Xuxl (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat doesn't mention his death date either. This book states that "little is known beyond the fact that his career stretched from the 1940s to the 1970s". If he's alive, he would be 104 now. Brandmeister^talk 20:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That matches the little I could find about him. Xuxl (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This mini bio talks about him in the past tense, implying he is no longer with us. --Lambiam 08:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists his published crime fiction (also shown on Worldcat) but no details beyond a birth date of 1918. His IMDb page (apparently not a Reliable Source for Wikipedia) has a considerable list of film and TV credits. Alansplodge (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the name could have been a pseudonym, since no one seems to know anything about him beyond his published works and numerous screenwriter credits, and there is absolutely no information about him that's later than his last published book, in 1972. For someone who was fairly prominent in the movie world in the 1950s and 1960s, it's strange that he would have disappeared seemingly without a trace. I was hoping someone would gave better luck than me tracking him down. Xuxl (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in notation, Scarlatti

I was looking at the beginning piece in the 1742 XIV Scarlatti manuscript (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Domenico_Scarlatti&filefrom=Scarlatti%2C+Sonate+K.+406+-+ms.+Parme+XI%2C19+%28page+3%29.jpg#/media/File:Scarlatti,_Sonate_K._43_-_ms._Venise_XIV,1.jpg), which would be k 43 and im curious as to why the notation has been changed?

For instance the notion for k.43, the modern versions, now have two flats in the key signature rather than the one b flat in the original. Reading Thurston Dart has made me rather weary so I would appreciate some insight for these alterations of a much older source (The aforementioned 1742 Venice manuscript)

thank you 2600:1700:7830:DE40:AC77:FD72:50FC:6E6F (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The puzzling thing to me is not the modern key signature, but that in the ms. The piece is clearly in G minor (note the F♯s), and all the E*s are E♭s, except for the last lower one in the top stave, but that is obviously by mistake. It is common that modern editions follow the modern notational conventions. --Lambiam 21:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This author[4] (see page 38) seems to be of the opinion in that Scarlatti's early works, his concept of tonality was based off of the medieval modes. They specifically calls out the example of writing g minor with one flat as a result of that orientation, although they don't mention K. 43 spcifically.

One other possibility that I found passing references to were that the key signature was a way of indicating the tuning for the instrument. Keyboard instruments of that era weren't generally tuned in equal temperament, so an instrument tuned to d minor, but played in g minor, would sound different than one tuned and played in g minor. But I'm not sure about that one... the reference there was pretty ambiguous. PianoDan (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

both, thank you 2600:1700:7830:DE40:ECBD:C4EC:6023:D4A4 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]