On Dec 30, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On Dec 30, 2007 12:28 AM, Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>  
> wrote:
>> Somewhat off-topic: I was thinking the other day about my last name
>> and why it's accented on the second syllable rather than the first
>> (vs. the given name Christopher). I have a theory that maybe it's
>> because the majority of -erson names in English are accented on the
>> syllable just before -erson.
>
> It's far more general than that.   Adding morphemes to English words
> often shifts the emphasis.    For instance, pick almost any adjective
> with stress that's not on the final syllable.   If you add "-ity" to
> nominalize it, ithe stress shifts:  '[fn]ormal => [fn]or'mality,
> 'viscous => vis'cosity.  'tranquil => tran'quility; sub'jective =>
> subjec'tivity.  This can happen even when a morpheme is removed first:
>  a'nonymous => ano'nymity.

Right, but my impression was that those words had gone through  
natural evolution in English, whereas borrowed (from Scandinavian)  
names would not have gone through it -- but I don't know how long the  
name has existed in English; maybe it has been there long enough to  
evolve with the rest.

>
> There are some general rules of thumb (with exceptions, of course):
> English words only have three stress levels: primary, secondary, and
> unstressed.  And you can't have more than two unstressed syllables in
> a row.   (Well, "can't" is too strong for a rule of thumb.  You can,
> but it feels unnatural to native speakers.)   Because "Christopher"
> has one stressed and two unstressed syllables,

For me it has a secondary accent (or tertiary maybe, according to  
some treatments of stress) on the last syllable, although now that I  
think about it I can also imagine it with completely unstressed  
second and third syllables.

> the form
> *'Christopherson has no good candidate for secondary stress and is
> rejected.

You have a point, provided the first name part of it has only primary  
stress. In that case I'm tempted to secondarily stress the -son, but  
that sounds a little weird, and it also sounds weird to secondarily  
stress the third syllable.

Be that as it may, people sometimes *do* accent it (incorrectly) on  
the first syllable. I'm not sure which secondary accentuation they use.

>   Also, you have the famous antecedent of Kris
> Kristofferson. :)
>
>> It's also funny that people use Mc-, which, being an Irish and
>> Scottish Gaelic-derived prefix, doesn't tend to occur along with the
>> mostly Scandinavian -[s]son/-[s]sen or German -[s]sohn. There is
>> McPherson, but that doesn't count because the -son is not derived
>> from its own morpheme.
>
> Well, I think that's intentional.  McSillyson is funny precisely
> because it's unlikely - and unlikely because it's redundant.   :)

Oh, yes -- in that they are both patronymics.

>
> -- 
> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>



On Dec 30, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Lars Finsen wrote:
> Den 30. des. 2007 kl. 15.22 skreiv Mark J. Reed:
>
>> Because "Christopher"
>> has one stressed and two unstressed syllables, the form
>> *'Christopherson has no good candidate for secondary stress and is
>> rejected.   Also, you have the famous antecedent of Kris
>> Kristofferson. :)
>
> Could be worth mentioning that the Scandinavian name Kristoffer  
> unlike the English Christopher is stressed on the middle syllable.  
> I assume KK's stock is from around these parts.

Oh, I didn't realize that. I don't know about KK, but my family is  
from Denmark/northern Germany.

>
> The surname Christopherson is not uncommon in the north of Britain.  
> I suppose they all have the usual 2nd syllable stress. (Or what?)
>
> LEF
>