this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
768 points (99.5% liked)
People Twitter
10405 readers
455 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. You can replace the addres of .x.com to xcancel.com in the address. https://web.archive.org/save is an option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement (see rule 6)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also, a bunch of Wrights too: Cartwright, Wainwright, Shipwright, Wheelright, etc.
Then there's just plain occupational names: Miller, Farmer, Thatcher, and so on.
Had this tradition continued, the information age would have given us: Chipwright, Cloudwright, Videosmith, Hacksmith, Coder, Tester, Gamer, Printer, and probably a ton more.
I always found it fun to learn about these old timey professions that (basically) no longer exist, but still exist as names, like:
Maybe "Marshalls" working for courts would set out on horses to round up runaways and bring them before the court.
"Court" I think, in this sense, was the king's court, not a judicial court. But, I think you're onto something about how it started as someone who took care of horses then probably evolved to being in charge of horses or something, to then being the official with the big job related to horses. I guess it's a bit like how "secretary" can be either a person making near minimum wage who does office work, or it can be the most powerful person in the cabinet who deals with X.
Man, sign me the fuck up for Hacksmith or Codewright. I'm all for nominative determinism like this