Homeboy wrote:
Yup, you’re right, but that doesn’t make me wrong: 
“king” is Middle English, from Old English cyning; akin to Old High German kuning, king, and Old English cynn, kin.
If you want to go further, its root traces back to the Indo-European gno-.
It is (though sometimes distantly) related to most of our modern words that refer to “knowing” (something or someone).
Blue and Redd are both surnames, as is Orange. They aren’t all that common, but they’re out there.
However, there are many variations on the theme of “red” that became more or less common last names: Reuben, Russet, Ruffin, Rudd, Ruddy, etc.
I am having trouble coming up with similar examples that might be related to “blue”, but I can’t help wondering if the surname “Bright” ever referred to folks with blue eyes. Recalling the words for “blue” in other languages (bleu, azul, blau) is not suggesting anything to me.
Purple, AFAIK, is virtually unused as an English-language surname. I won’t rule out “Violet”, but I’ve never heard of it. I have heard of the French surname “Laviolette”, however.
IIRC, the Dutch word for “Orange” is the family name of the Dutch royal family. I’d need to give that a quick Google search to be certain.
How about that Ed Anger guy who writes a column in the Weekly World News (that bastion of credibility)?
True story:
Several years ago, I shared my apartment with an African-American man whose last name was Smith. This same discussion came up between us one evening, particularly the bit about family names coming from occupations. He said to me, straight-faced, “That’s true. My great-grandfather was a black smith…”
On history of pope:
“pope” is Middle English, from Old English papa, from Late Latin, from Latin, father (title of clergy), from Greek pappas. or so say the linguists…
However, there is some debate over the history of the word papa as well.
So we may be basing the history of “Pope” on a baby from 4000 years ago. 
As for “blue” (just a hip-shot here): it is related from Old French blou, and they got it from the Germans. but it is also related to the Latin flavus (I know, that’s related to yellow, Hmmm - I’ll have to get back to you on the connection there)
Hardly, due to immigration names are constantly being added. I would imagine if you looked in the UK phone directory 50 years ago there would only be half the number of different names we have now. Also people are inventing new names (was Humperdink based on a real name?) or double barrelling them (e.g. Lennard-Jones).
It is hard for a name to disappear completely. E.g. we thought my wifes family name (Tangney) will die out in New Zealand as all her known relations had daughters rather than sons. But when we looked in the NZ register we found some long lost relations. The name survives for now.
As an aside, you can sort of see the evolution of surnames in action in South Wales.
My mother’s side of my family comes from there, so I have many relatives in and around the area and have spent quite a few summers in the valleys.
Because the Welsh community seems to have a limited number of common surnames and tend to draw forenames from family traditions, a lot of people end up having the same names. Informally these people are identified by alternate surnames that are more precise.
For example, my grandmother was Alice Pleasant View since her house was called Pleasant View. I had an aunt, Margaret Lamp Post, who had a lamp post right outside her house. I often have a hard time remembering their actual surnames when I’m sending christmas cards.
The names were drawn geographically in some cases, from random characteristics in others. I guess, if no formal system was already in place, this kind of thing would evolve into surnames in common usage and from there into official record.
Aha! (Ok, I cheated and used Bartleby)
But I have found “blue’s” connection to flavus:
Indo-European orgin from bhel-
Not sure here but we may get 'blue" sirnames like: Blum, Blume or Blumel.
From an interesting essay on the perception of color, regarding “blue” and flavus:
How do you figure “When two people marry, quite often one surname vanishes” ??
If you are saying that a surname vanishes just because a woman takes her husband’s surname, then you are forgetting that the woman probably has brothers and they will keep the surname alive. Your logic is based on a false premise.
My understanding is that these surnames come from the German cognate for “bloom” (blum, IIRC); so that these names are more akin to French “Lefleur” or Spanish “Flores”.
However, it doesn’t take much of a leap to see how words like “bloom” and blum may be etymologically related to “blue” and flavus … so perhaps there is a connection if traced far enough back in time.
Maybe I didn’t put that clear enough, then. I didn’t mean “vanish” in the sense of “disappears off the face of the earth instantly”. All I’m saying is that marriage has the potential (though not the necessity in all cases) of diminishing the number of names. I am female and have no brothers, so if I married and took on someone else’s name, my branch of that the name would die out. Yes, I know, some male cousin somewhere could be raising a brood of sixteen strapping and eligible young lads and cancel that out. Still though, marriage has the potential to “kill off” branches of surnames and I don’t see there’s any equivalent institution that would add on names (except deed poll changes, which seem to me to be a much smaller factor). So it still seems to me that as a net result the number of names would diminish.
scm101 thinks immigration would fit the bill as bringer of new surnames. Of course that’s completely true if you are looking at the surnames of just the one country. If you’re looking at surnames worldwide the same process I described above would still to apply. The only way around it that I can think of is by having different ways of deriving surnames than we do. I think, for instance, that in Iceland a boy would get his father’s first name with “son” stuck after it. I think the Arabic system might be similar, but I’m not sure how that works exactly.
Yes, it is. The pop singer Englebert Humperdinck (born Arnold George Dorsey) took his stage name from German composer Englebert Humperdinck (1854-1921), best known for his children’s opera Hansel und Gretel.
Thanks bordelond, liked the essay.
And as for the vanishing surnames: though I have no cite, I seem to remember reading that the number is diminishing, albeit slowly.
This makes sense if we:
Agree that current surname varieties are at a countable, but maximum, number.
Concede that not all surnames will survive to the next generation (no males in family, or none reproduce, or such)
Assume that there are no new surnames being created (I don’t know about this one, but I would think this true)
Even if new surnames are being created, but at a rate slower than they are eliminated - we lose names. This seems most likely.
Don’t be so quick to assume. In fact, new surnames ARE being created.
One source is from immigrants who change the spelling/pronunciation of their name to make it more “English” (or German, French, Laotian or whatever.)
Another, which will probably evolve more slowly, is from couple who hyphenate their names when they marry. Not only will the hyphenated names remain, but at some point one of their decendents will say “I’m tired of being John Jones-Smith-White-Brown. From now on I’m Johnny Multihyphen.”
Just in case the OP hasn’t gotten the message, family names have not always been a part of human culture, so Adam and Eve (had they existed) most probably would not have family names.
In fact, the use of family names, as a rule, in European culture is relatively recent. It did not become de rigeur in Britain until about the 15th century – so only about 600 years ago. In parts of India, family names are either not used at all or have been instituted only within the last 50 years. In many places in the world (such as Indonesia and Iceland), family names still are not mandatory.
As has been stated before, there are four main sources of family names – patronymics (parentage), occupational, descriptives, and place names. Things like clan or tribe names usually can be pegged to one of the others, often patronymics.
Regarding names like “King,” it is important to note that it is not likely that the first person to hold this name was an actual holder of this title. Most likely it was someone who held an (often menial) job associated with the king. Or it might be some kind of descriptive or nickname for someone with a kingly manner. “Pope” is likely a nickname for a Catholic, rather than an actual pope (who might be unlikely to have acknowledged any offspring who would inherit such a name).
As to terminology, this is a very important issue when one is speaking of names. Generally, the American terms “first name” and “last name” and the British terms “Christian name” and “surname” are all considered imprecise and are disfavoured by genealogists.
After all, it doesn’t make sense to speak of “first names” and “last names” when Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Hungarians, for example, put their family names first. And it doesn’t help when you’re talking about a culture, such as Iceland, where individuals do not inherit family names (rather, they have patronymics). Also, in places like Indonesia, people often have just one name. In many Arabic cultures, a person might have multiple names, but none are inherited like a family name is inherited.
Similarly, the term “Christian name” only makes sense when you’re talking about someone who has received a name as part of a Christian ceremony, such as baptism.
“Surname” is also a specialised term for a name that has been “added,” such as William the Conqueror.
The preferred terms are, thus, “given name” and “family name.”
But it doesn’t help when you’re talking about a culture, such as Iceland, where individuals do not inherit family names.
Heh. Of course, when speaking of the Icelandic system, the terms would be “given name” and “patronymic.”
Aaaah, OK, kunilou I’ll concede to the hyphenated names, that is one I missed. (smacky guy here)
As for the Immigrant names, I might be more hesitant to count these against the hypothesis (keep in mind I did not say my hypothesis, I simply recalled reading an argument for this).
Now as I think about it, sure these may increase the name pool, but perhaps only for the short term…
Seeing that these names are already based on existing names, and there are a limited number of reproductions possible, we still have a “maxing out” limit (or perhaps I am making this limit up, I don’t know). In any case, when you change a name (even hyphenating it), you effectively decrease the chances of the old name to continue. And though I realize there could be twenty different ways to change some of these names (with some overlaps), these would still fall into the limited name pool. In this instance, the pool would initially increase.
But…
I would think that this practice of “Americanizing” (or any-country-izing) names will eventually slow down as our society becomes more homogenous (I would guess it has in the U.S. since the turn of the century, but again, I haven’t checked), but true, this may take quite a while.
However, your point about hyphenating names then takes off as a whole new monster - do we continue this practice through consecutive generations? (as your example) or do those descendants say “I’m sticking with ‘Smith’ for simplicity”? In an ever more homogenous world culture we will have chances for many hyphenates (and so on). But some will not capitulate to this hyphenating (or further hyphenating), so these will slowly become dead-ends even as new branches multiply.
Hmmm, Seems to get complicated :eek:
Ultimately, it depends upon the ratio between the decrease of “old” surnames compared to the increase of “new” (hyphenated or altered) surnames. This ratio seems to be in constant change through the years. This presumes, also, that all cultures inherit surnames the same way.
Of course, like the gambler’s ruin, the only limit that will finally matter is the lower one of zero.
There are many countries in which surnames are not used even today.
Actually, Blau is a relatively common Jewish name meaning Blue (possibly referring to eye color). Roth means red, and Geller yellow (hair?).
(Weiss, Braun and Schwartz mean white, brown and black respectively).
There is no “scientific” way in which to analyse the future of family names. The use of family names has evolved over the past few centuries and will continue to do so. Even Americans have shown the ability to arbitrarily change their names when they want to do so. Look at performers, for example. Look at the decrease in the number of people with the family name “Hitler” in the United States after the start of World War II. Look at the “Ellis Island” random changing of immigrants’ names.
Furthermore, to suggest that the United States is more homogenous now than it was 100 years ago seems an extraordinary assumption to me. Look at the influx of names in the last 30 to 40 years – Indian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, African, Hmong, Korean, Caribbean … not to mention the Hispanic names from Central and South America. If anything the family name population in the United States is now more diverse than it ever was.