How the Surnames got adopted ?

Question

is there a link between well sounding surnames to worse sounding surnames in around the world. Have all the surnames been deciphered by the discovery / national geographic channels . i am interested to take up a meaning ful study in India . Can anybody help?

Answer 1

If you look into the surname aspect you will realise that many surnames bear resemblance to the original native place of the person i.e the land of the forefathers... Some communities in India carry with them the fathers name or the clan name as surnames .A lot of family history can be learnt through surnames.You may have to study the details statewise to get a better understanding of the various communities & castes in the region. Some surnames are found in all castes also. It really is no small job. All the best.

Answer 2

They were based on a) being the son  of someone, Johnson, Johns, Jones, sons of men named John.

b) their occupation, Smith, Cooper, Miller, Fisher, Baker, Taylor, Clark(clerk), Wright, etc.

c) where they lived, Sam lived on or near a hill and became Sam Hill.  Whtifield means they lived close to a white field, could be the name of a town or castle they lived close to(a person can make a mistake in assuming they were kin to the Lord of the Manor because an ancestor lived close to a castle bearing their name)

d) some characteristic about them, John had brown hair and became John Brown. Other names Stout, Short, Sharp, Whitehead etc.

When they got through it wasn't impossible for legitimate sons of the same man to have different surnames still they each could have shared their surnames with others with whom they were not related.

In England most common people had one by the end of the 14th century.  However, it wasn't until a couple of more centuries, in many cases, before the same surname was passed down  through the generations from father to son