The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 5, February, 1885 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 127 pages of information about The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 5, February, 1885.

The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 5, February, 1885 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 127 pages of information about The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 5, February, 1885.

Some of these old nicknames have already gone nearly or quite out of use, so much so that many of our young people will be surprised to learn that Patty was, not long ago, the vernacular for Martha, and would never imagine that “Margaret” could ever have responded to the call of “Peggy;” “Hitty” and “Kitty,” for the staid and sober “Mehitable,” and the volatile Katherine, are more easily recognized, while it might require several guesses to establish the relationship between “Milly” and “Amelia,” or “Emily.”

Stranger than either, perhaps because both the proper name and its diminutive have become so uncommon, is that transformation which reduced “Tabitha,” to “Bertha,” with the accent upon the first syllable, and its vowel long.  A curious instance of the change in this name, and the further variation made in it in consequence of its forgotten derivation, has recently occurred in the record of the death of an old lady who was baptized “Tabitha,” called in her youth “Bitha,” and now in her obituary styled Mrs.  “Bertha,” probably from the similarity of sound to her youthful nickname.  Her relatives of the present generation had forgotten her real name and knew her only under that of an imitation of her diminutive.  The transition from “Bitha” to “Bertha” is easy, but how is the perplexed genealogist to ascertain the original when he has only the records for his guide?

Such illustrations might be multiplied almost indefinitely, but those already given are enough to show what an infinite amount of trouble has come and must still come from their continued usage.  They also serve well to show with how much care and watchfulness the historian must pursue his work; how constantly he must be upon his guard, and how closely and critically he must scrutinize the names that pass under his eye.

Nor was this custom of nicknames confined to the daughters of the family, but the boys, also, were among its subjects, perhaps in not so great a variety, yet very general.  Among the more common we only need mention such as Bill, Ned, Jack, and Frank, to illustrate this.  Nor were there wanting among the masculine nicknames those whose derivations seem very remote and far-fetched, as “El” for “Alphus;” “Hal” for “Henry;” “Jot” for “Jonathan;” “Seph” for “Josephus;” “Nol” for “Oliver;” “Dick” for “Richard,” and a multitude of others equally well known.

The instances named are old and have been in general use so long that those who are called upon to deal with them are upon their guard and not likely to be led astray by them, but the class of pet names, now, for a few years in use, will necessarily be more misleading because they are new, and in many cases very blind; in many instances the same nickname being used to represent perhaps a dozen different proper names, so that it is impossible to tell, from the nickname, what the real name is.  Among the most annoying of this class are those that not only represent several names each, but are masculine or feminine, as occasion calls.

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 5, February, 1885 from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.