[r-t] Dixon & Dawson

[Glenn Taylor]

I can't comment on whether Dixon and Dawson are the same or not, but to
continue Robin's observation I can add that in the Lancashire town "where I
were brung up" the surname GRIME was interchangeable with GRAHAM, certainly
in the 18th/19th centuries. At first sight this looks as unlikely, perhaps,
as DIXON/DAWSON but I have long held the theory that my own example is the
result of the spelling of the name 'Graham' as GRAEME. Although nowadays we
accept these as acceptable alternative spellings, it is not, to me,
difficult to imagine the word GRAEME being pronounced GRAHAM when
encountered for the first time.

This said, however, I can't immediately think of a DIXON/DAWSON parallel.

Glenn


-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
Behalf Of Robin Woolley
Sent: 08 June 2016 06:17
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [r-t] Dixon & Dawson

Hi All,

There is evidence to suggest that RAS is wrong when he says Dixon and Dawson
are not the same name.

This US government site: 
http://www.archives.gov/publications/general-info-leaflets/55-census.html
defines the Soundex coding system as "The soundex is a coded surname index
based on the way a surname sounds rather than the way it is spelled.
Surnames that sound the same, but are spelled differently, like SMITH and
SMYTH, have the same code and are filed together. The soundex coding system
was developed so that you can find a surname even though it may have been
recorded under various spellings."

It has a link to an on-line calculator which encodes both names as D250.

More work needs to be done.

This also helps to show that Fluellen did not call Alexander porcine

Just a thought
Robin

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net