Descriptive or Patronymic Surnames

[david64]

Evening,

I have been researching Amerindian surnames and most of these are names of male ancestors and are often descriptive, e.g. Kingfisher and Kills Enemy At Night; this latter surname is still in use.

These names were Anglicised from various Indian dialects and became surnames. So, they are technically patronymic, as they are derived from the name of a male ancestor. However, that male ancestor was specifically named, usually in their adult lifetime due to some feat, skill, likeness etc. So this is different from your typical patronym, where the progenitor is given an obliquity name.

I am looking for some input on how people think these should be catalogued, as patronymic or descriptive, or maybe a new class?

[pinefamily]

That is an interesting question, David64. If all of the descendants of the original bearer have the surname, then it becomes a surname in its own right.
If it has been passed down consistently, I don't think you could call it patronymic. Descriptive is probably a better term, in my opinion.
There are similar issues in Swedish surnames. Originally patronymic, there was the added use of surnames in military service. Sometimes individuals kept the new name, sometimes they reverted to the patronymic. And when surnames started to be consistent, there was still quite a few who kept to the patronymic system.

[jbml]

I agree with Pine ... not patronymic.

A patronymic surname would be Robinson, MacPhail or Fitzroy ... actually naming the person's father.

When the name became fixed, and was passed to the descendants of that person, it ceased to be descriptive of THEIR fathers ... but we still term it "patronymic" because it has its origins in a patronym.



A descriptive surname would be something that tells you something about the person themselves, such as Longfellow, Short, Swift or Black (the last probably referring to the colour of the person's hair). Again, when the name became fixed and passed to the descendants of that person, it probably ceased to be descriptive of them, although it might not (short people often have short children) ... but we still term it descriptive because it has its origins in a description. It does not suddenly become patronymic merely by virtue of the fact that is the person's father or a more remote ancestor who is being described, rather than the person themselves.


Now, Kills Enemies At Night sounds to me like a descriptive surname (it is descriptive of a characteristic behavior, rather than a physical characteristic; but it is descriptive nonetheless) and, once it becomes fixed and passed to the children and more remote descendants of the person who used to kill enemies at night, I do not think it becomes patronymic any more than Swift becomes patronymic as the surname of a stout and lumbering boy whose father was named swift because he was remarkably fleet of foot.

[jim1]

A name such as kills enemy at night would fall into the occupational category in the same way as baker, thatcher, fletcher etc. Although not an occupation as such the original holder was known for this in the same way.
In my view names such as kingfisher, running deer etc. are based on the mythology/religion of the North American Indian & therefore form a new category.

[david64]

Thanks all for your input. However, I think something may not have come across. The name: KILLS ENEMY AT NIGHT was a forename. The original holder did not have a surname. But in the process of Anglicisation, Kills Enemy At Night's children took it as a surname. Thus, in my opinion, it is a patronym, but am of the leaning of jim1, that such surnames do not fit into European categories and new categories should probably be created.

In England, for example, the surname, you will find people named like, Athelstan fil. Grimbald, where the forename was given at birth, maybe generically, or maybe in an attempt to transpose some characteristic associated with that name. However, with Amerindians, it seems most took new personal names during their life and, at least in my experience, they were taken due to an event, feat, or characteristic.

In England you will find surnames from characteristics and there are likely a few obscure ones from feats or events; and these people would be known like John la Bald, Richard la Small etc. Thus the forename would be given at birth and the surname would be adopted in life. Amerindians did not have surnames, but rather their birth names were replaced during their life with a new personal name. So whereas European forenames are not descriptive, Amerindians ones are.

Thus, it doesn't fit in with European naming conventions. Although it is strictly patronymic, I feel there is a need for some distinction in the case of such names.

I have also been thinking on the point jim1 makes on mythology/religion-related surnames. A lot of Amerindian names appear to have such names and although they could be classified as descriptive, I again think a new category is in order.

No doubt there are a number of new categories that could be found outside Europe. In India (Asia) I have found surnames for castes, which I would distinguish from clan surnames and also surnames for languages. In some cases, I have seen villages where almost everyone has the same surname derived from a language.

Some names I have had real problems putting into a category. For example I have come across a Burundi surname meaning 'Burundians kill'

[pinefamily]

You would like to think that "Burundians Kill" is not an occupational name! 

Now that you have given more information, and with the input of Jim1, I think you have a point about new categories. Although, in a strict sense, it is still a patronymic name, as it has become a surname, passed down from one individual.

[jim1]

One of the things we have to take into account is that these names are English translations of ancient dialects & the original meanings may be slightly different to these.
There are comparative Anglo-Saxon names, for example Godwin ( Goodson ) transposed into the surname Goodwin but as given at birth would be aspirational rather than descriptive but would fall into that category.
Godwin in later life may have become a baker, a name eventually taken by the family ( occupational ).
He may also have been just a serf & therefore didn't have an occupation that stood him out & the family became known as Goodwin ( descriptive ).
In your example he became know by that name later in life because he stood out for that reason although he wouldn't been killing enemies at night constantly he was known for it in the same way someone called bowman ( occupational ) might have been given his name, not because he did it constantly but because he was known for it.

[jbml]

I'm going to be totally iconoclastic here, and ask "does it really matter?"

I now understand where you're coming from, with your further explanations - but it seems to me that this difficulty of categorisation has arisen only because you are attempting to categorise, and of course the systems of categorisation which are available to you were designed around a totally different data set.

But ... and here's the thing ... do we actually NEED to categorise at all, here? What advantage do we gain from doing so? What detriment will we suffer if we are unable to? It seems to me that at the end of the day it may be an interesting philosophical point to ponder over a pint and a pipe; but that we will derive no practical benefit from arriving at an answer.

I retain an open mind and am happy to be persuaded to a different view; and maybe it's all down to my own intellectual limitations. But that's how it seems to me right now.

[david64]

Thanks for the further input. And in answer to jbml. No. It isn't that important. I'll put them as patronymic for now.