Why are neutral color surnames like Black, Brown, or White relatively common but more vibrant colors like Yellow, Blue, or Violet are not?

by nctrojan23
TheJucheisLoose

This is an interesting question, but I'm not sure it tracks with reality.

  • Blue is actually a fairly common surname, it is Top 1500 in the U.S., according to the 2000 census

  • Green was Top 40 in the U.S.

  • Redd was Top 2500 in the U.S.

  • Rosen (which means 'red') was Top 1500 in the U.S.

  • Rose (which admittedly might be the flower, not just the flower's color) was Top 150 in the U.S.

And those were just off the top of my head. So I'm skeptical.

tim_mcdaniel

You might be interested in How did last names of colors arise (Blue, Green, Brown, White, Black, Grey), and why have I never seem anyone with the last names Red, Orange, Yellow, etc.?, in which /u/random-dent give pieces of answers. I learned afterwards that Reaney and Wilson's etymologies sometimes have to be taken with a grain of salt: Wilson's preface to the third edition says "Similarly the etymologies suggested are usually my own, and from the nature of the surnames included tend to be either obvious or highly speculative". If there's a clear place-name or other pointer to a definite meaning ("at the" indicates a generic place), they are pretty solid, but some are unmarked best guesses. Color names often referring to a personal characteristic is pretty solid, and also in other languages than English.