Craig Rottman
rot...@plains.nodak.edu
>I have a general question on the formation of surnames that I have
>not seen addressed. First, what is the importance or meaning of the
>suffix "-man" or "-mann" in German surnames? For example, in looking
>at surnames of my ancestors, they used Rotman (or with double t's
>and/or n's) instead of Rott. Rott is more common, at least in the U.S.
I won't go into the roth/rot/rott origins as there are many and the
spelling could well be any for the same family but the -mann ending is
typical German for man and properly spelled with a double n. So
whatever descriptive name exists before -mann simply describes
something about such a person. It could be a characteristic, a source
location or an occupational skill. Any of which could apply here.
>Other examples for my ancestors are Ridder vs. Ridderman and Timmer
>vs. Timmerman. Finally, can anyone shed some light on the choice of
>"-mann" vs. "-man"? I noted that those Germans who moved to the
>Netherlands usually ended up with "-man" while those who stayed in
>Germany adopted "-mann".
-man would have been a change from the original -mann.
Fred
: >Other examples for my ancestors are Ridder vs. Ridderman and Timmer
: >vs. Timmerman. Finally, can anyone shed some light on the choice of
: >"-mann" vs. "-man"? I noted that those Germans who moved to the
: >Netherlands usually ended up with "-man" while those who stayed in
: >Germany adopted "-mann".
: -man would have been a change from the original -mann.
I wouldn't necessarily say a change. Double-n reflects the modern German
spelling convention but modern German spelling conventions haven't always
been in force (and "man" in the pronominal sense uses a single 'n'). It
would be better to consider them as two different reflexes rather than an
"original" and a "changed" form. It's much the same situation as with
"Rott," "Roth," and "Rot."
Consonant doubling in Germanic languages is often used to indicate the
"shortness" (which has often evolved into some other feature) of the
preceding vowel, however a lot of historic orthographic systems didn't
adhere to this convention and some dialects weren't (and still aren't)
quite as fussy about vowel length as others, plus length can change over
time due to various influences. Consequently consonant doubling can vary
from time to time and place to place in the same word. There really
aren't many conclusions you can safely draw from its presence or absence,
though as noted modern standard German does apply it while modern standard
Dutch doesn't.
Ben Buckner
W. Fred Rump <fr...@k2nesoft.com> wrote in article
<33e08446...@news.k2nesoft.com>...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:53:49 -0500, Craig Rottman
> <rot...@PLAINS.NODAK.EDU> wrote:
>
> >I have a general question on the formation of surnames that I have
> >not seen addressed. First, what is the importance or meaning of the
> >suffix "-man" or "-mann" in German surnames? For example, in looking
> >at surnames of my ancestors, they used Rotman (or with double t's
> >and/or n's) instead of Rott. Rott is more common, at least in the U.S.
>
> I won't go into the roth/rot/rott origins as there are many and the
> spelling could well be any for the same family but the -mann ending is
> typical German for man and properly spelled with a double n. So
> whatever descriptive name exists before -mann simply describes
> something about such a person. It could be a characteristic, a source
> location or an occupational skill. Any of which could apply here.
>
> >Other examples for my ancestors are Ridder vs. Ridderman and Timmer
> >vs. Timmerman. Finally, can anyone shed some light on the choice of
> >"-mann" vs. "-man"? I noted that those Germans who moved to the
> >Netherlands usually ended up with "-man" while those who stayed in
> >Germany adopted "-mann".
>
> -man would have been a change from the original -mann.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
-man and -mann both mean "man".
> Finally, can anyone shed some light on the choice of "-mann"
> vs. "-man"?
-mann was used for right-handers, and -man was used for left-handers.
No, I'm just kidding! There's no significant difference.
--
=Jim Eggert Egg...@LL.mit.edu
> I have a general question on the formation of surnames that I have
> not seen addressed. First, what is the importance or meaning of the
> suffix "-man" or "-mann" in German surnames? For example, in looking
> at surnames of my ancestors, they used Rotman (or with double t's
> and/or n's) instead of Rott. Rott is more common, at least in the U.S.
> Other examples for my ancestors are Ridder vs. Ridderman and Timmer
> vs. Timmerman. Finally, can anyone shed some light on the choice of
> "-mann" vs. "-man"? I noted that those Germans who moved to the
> Netherlands usually ended up with "-man" while those who stayed in
> Germany adopted "-mann".
>
> Craig Rottman
> rot...@plains.nodak.edu
I have noticed that our own name appears with a single n in medieval
documents from the 13th to 15th centuries and then turns up with the
double n in the 16th century. Presumably there was a sort of development.
Bob Widenmann
m_b_...@post8.tele.dk
No, it is not correct. Felix Goldmann (1882-1934), for example, was a
famous Jewish author, with books like "Why we are and remain Jews" and
"On the Existence of Antisemitism".
> In any locality ?
Oh, it must be trivially true in some small villages where there are
no -man or -mann surnames. But it is not usefully true.
--
=Jim Eggert Egg...@LL.mit.edu
Ridderman and Timmerman sound to me as typical Dutch names
(ridder=knight, timmerman=carpenter). In German those names probably
would be Rittermann and Zimmermann.
You are correct about the last "n" often being dropped when moving to
the Netherlands; from among my own ancesters: Schlamann became Slaman,
Laermann became Laarman.
Arthur
Some immigrants to America dropped the second "n", some did not. I did
not. That is probably the main, if not the only, difference.
HCAl...@aol.com (Heinz Altmann)
> On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:53:49 -0500, Craig Rottman
> <rot...@PLAINS.NODAK.EDU> wrote:
>
> >I have a general question on the formation of surnames that I have
> >not seen addressed. First, what is the importance or meaning of the
> >suffix "-man" or "-mann" in German surnames? For example, in looking
> >at surnames of my ancestors, they used Rotman (or with double t's
> >and/or n's) instead of Rott. Rott is more common, at least in the U.S.
>
> I won't go into the roth/rot/rott origins as there are many and the
> spelling could well be any for the same family but the -mann ending is
> typical German for man and properly spelled with a double n. So
> whatever descriptive name exists before -mann simply describes
> something about such a person. It could be a characteristic, a source
> location or an occupational skill. Any of which could apply here.
>
> >Other examples for my ancestors are Ridder vs. Ridderman and Timmer
> >vs. Timmerman. Finally, can anyone shed some light on the choice of
> >"-mann" vs. "-man"? I noted that those Germans who moved to the
> >Netherlands usually ended up with "-man" while those who stayed in
> >Germany adopted "-mann".
>
> -man would have been a change from the original -mann.
>
>
My surname LELLMAN and all other Lellman(n) lines originated from Germany
as LELLMANN. Most dropped the 2nd N, although not always at the time
of emigration, perhaps due to anti-German sentiment. I still have not
discovered what Lell might indicate.
Jim Lellman
lel...@daugherty.com