In article <
53685f6e-1007-4d36...@googlegroups.com>,
Ramapriya D <
d.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's fairly common to see occupation-derived surnames such as Baker,
>Smith, Potter, Ironmonger, Shoemaker and Cooper but I've never thus far
>come across a Farmer although it's got to be *the* most traditional of
>occupations. Why is this so?
Precisely because it's a very common occupation. Such surnames were
originally epithets: John Baker as distinct from John Smith as
distinct from John Cooper as distinct from John the Bishop's
man(servant). In a typical medieval town, there would be very few
people engaged in those occupations, so they would serve a
distinguishing function -- whereas "farmer" was the most common
occupation and therefore would not distinguish anyone. Thus, John
Farmer is more likely to be someone who *used to be* a farmer, or who
was the son of a farmer but moved to the city (or didn't inherit). In
some cases, such names may be alterations (e.g., anglicized) or
calques of foreign names (which may or may not have had any connection
to occupations).
I have no idea what a Wollmann did in Prussia at the point when
surnames became formalized. We assume it was something to do with
wool. And we don't know whether our earliest ancestor of that name
actually had anything to do with that trade (indeed, we don't know
anything at all about said ancestor, unless more information has come
to light in the past few decades since my grandfather died).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)