Concerns about the definition+elucidation for Diminutive Name

[gregfowlerphd]

I'd like to suggest that the elucidation of 'Diminutive Name' be modified. Here's why.

The definition of ‘Diminutive Name’ holds that a diminutive name ‘is a familiar form of a Proper Name’, while the elucidation maintains that a familiar form of a proper name must be ‘used (originally) by family or friends’. Thus the definition and elucidation jointly entail that a diminutive name must be used (originally) by family or friends. But this claim is subject to counterexample.

The sort of counterexample that initially occurred to me here involved chattel slavery. If I’m not mistaken, slaveowners often used diminutive names for their slaves, and there seems to be no reason that a slaveowner couldn’t have been the original user of such a name.

A similar sort of counterexample, I believe, sometimes occurs in cases of bullying.

(These counterexamples might also be taken to cast doubt on the portion of the elucidation requiring a familiar form of a proper name to be an ‘affectionate version’ of that name.)

Another sort of counterexample involves diminutive names for pets. Clearly, a diminutive name for a pet needn’t have been used (originally) by family or friends.

Perhaps the elucidation could be changed to something like the following?:

The familiar form of a Proper Name is a short version of the fuller name of the sort often used by family or friends to refer affectionately to the entity designated by the fuller name.

I think something like this, together with the examples of usage, would be sufficient to pin down the meaning of 'familiar form' for users without leading to the sorts of counterexamples described.