Re: Margaret and Peggy
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Previous # Next ] [ Start New Thread ] [ TarBoard ]
Posted by Ian E-N on July 17, 2002 at 12:46:51 from 148.88.0.10
user IanEN.
In Reply to: Margaret and Peggy posted by Dan Lind on July 16, 2002 at -1:17:32:
it's a diminutive form of Maggie - itself short for Margaret.
In fact as definition of "diminutive" Webster's has:-
indicating small size and sometimes the state or quality of being familiarly known, lovable, pitiable, or contemptible -- used of affixes (as -ette, -kin, -ling) and of words formed with them (as kitchenette, manikin, duckling), of clipped forms (as Jim), and of altered forms (as Peggy); compare AUGMENTATIVE
mebbe "pe" being a softer sound than "ma" ?
our Peggy (d.o.b 18th January) should, for generations of both families reasons, have been a Margaret. However for political and Ransome reasons she was pre-abridged.
Follow Ups:
- Re: Margaret and Peggy Jim McDowell 07/17/02
(3)
- Re: Margaret and Peggy Robert Dilley 07/17/02
(20)
- Re: Margaret and Peggy Anne LeVeque 07/23/02
(0)
- Re: Margaret and Peggy Bob Hollis 07/18/02
(18)
- Re: Margaret and Peggy RichardG 07/18/02
(17)
- Re: Margaret and Peggy Andy Clayton 07/18/02
(16)
- Re: Margaret and Peggy Jim McDowell 07/18/02
(15)
- Re: Margaret and Peggy Harry Miller 07/18/02
(13)
- Re: Jibbooms nad bobstays David Bamford 07/19/02
(12)
- Sea horses (was: Jibbooms nad bobstays) Robert Hill 07/19/02
(0)
- Jibbooms, bobstays, and yacht clubs Mike Field 07/19/02
(10)
- Oh yes, and,,,, Mike F 07/19/02
(9)
- Re: Oh yes, and,,,, Jeremy Kriewaldt 07/19/02
(1)
- Re: Oh yes, and,,,, Jonathan Labaree 07/19/02
(6)
- Re: Oh yes, and,,,, Mike F. 07/19/02
(5)
- Re: Oh yes, and,,,, Peter H 07/19/02
(1)
- Re: Oh yes, and,,,, Jonathan Labaree 07/19/02
(2)
- Bobstay's function Jonathan Labaree 07/18/02
(0)
Post a Followup