"de Burgh"
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Clagett, Brice
"de Burgh"
Iain Moncreiffe, in "The High Kings of Ireland," Burke's Irish
Family Records (1976) p. 44 n.33, refers to "the great Norman
family of du Bourg (called 'de Burgo in charter-Latin to indicate
by the final 'o' that in French it is 'du' and not 'de'. just as 'de
Haya' means 'de la Haye' -- but no scholars will get this into
their heads, so we get the ridiculous form 'de Burgh' invented by
historians and adopted by some of the fmaily in modern times)
.. . .."
Can any one help me understand what Moncreiffe meant? I
would have thought that the "o" in "de Burgo" was simply the
ablative, following the preposition "de," and would have been so
whether the French was "de Bourg" or "du Bourg." ("De Bourg"
would have been ungrammatical in any event, since French, unlike
Latin, requires "the.")
That leaves the question as to the best way to refer to the med-
ieval family today. Recent authorities seem closely divided between
"de Burgh" and "de Burgo." The latter at least has the advantage of
conforming to a medieval usage, though in Latin (which is certainly
to be eschewed as a general matter; we don't want to go around
calling people de Mortuo Mare, etc.) Even if we are going to keep the
name in French form but anglicize "bourg" to "burgh," wouldn't it
have to be "du Burgh" to reflect the required "the"?
As an original matter the best solution would probably have been
to retain "du Bourg," but may be too late in the day to advocate that
since no one does it. "De Burgh" seems a bastard hybrid with
nothing to recommend it. All things considered, I tend to opt for
"de Burgo." What do others think?
Family Records (1976) p. 44 n.33, refers to "the great Norman
family of du Bourg (called 'de Burgo in charter-Latin to indicate
by the final 'o' that in French it is 'du' and not 'de'. just as 'de
Haya' means 'de la Haye' -- but no scholars will get this into
their heads, so we get the ridiculous form 'de Burgh' invented by
historians and adopted by some of the fmaily in modern times)
.. . .."
Can any one help me understand what Moncreiffe meant? I
would have thought that the "o" in "de Burgo" was simply the
ablative, following the preposition "de," and would have been so
whether the French was "de Bourg" or "du Bourg." ("De Bourg"
would have been ungrammatical in any event, since French, unlike
Latin, requires "the.")
That leaves the question as to the best way to refer to the med-
ieval family today. Recent authorities seem closely divided between
"de Burgh" and "de Burgo." The latter at least has the advantage of
conforming to a medieval usage, though in Latin (which is certainly
to be eschewed as a general matter; we don't want to go around
calling people de Mortuo Mare, etc.) Even if we are going to keep the
name in French form but anglicize "bourg" to "burgh," wouldn't it
have to be "du Burgh" to reflect the required "the"?
As an original matter the best solution would probably have been
to retain "du Bourg," but may be too late in the day to advocate that
since no one does it. "De Burgh" seems a bastard hybrid with
nothing to recommend it. All things considered, I tend to opt for
"de Burgo." What do others think?
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: "de Burgh"
In article
<B1F75BF666FCFD4F9B3EA0D0A58482BD0382D617@cbiexm01dc.cov.com>,
bclagett@cov.com ("Clagett, Brice") wrote:
Perhaps more of the the context would mitigate things, but Moncreiffe's
passage seems like nonsense to me. 'de' + ablative is the perfectly
obvious explanation, and the presence or absence of what becomes the
definite article in vernaculars is irrelevant in any Latin rendering
I've seen, even of the 12th or 13th centuries.
Well, I've always held that 'de + ablative' in charters is itself sort
of an inelegant cheat by the scribes of the day; what did it render from
contemporary vernacular speech? What is the usage of someone like Wace,
or vernacular prose chroniclers of the 13th century, dealing with a
similarly constructed name?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
<B1F75BF666FCFD4F9B3EA0D0A58482BD0382D617@cbiexm01dc.cov.com>,
bclagett@cov.com ("Clagett, Brice") wrote:
Iain Moncreiffe, in "The High Kings of Ireland," Burke's Irish
Family Records (1976) p. 44 n.33, refers to "the great Norman
family of du Bourg (called 'de Burgo in charter-Latin to indicate
by the final 'o' that in French it is 'du' and not 'de'. just as 'de
Haya' means 'de la Haye' -- but no scholars will get this into
their heads, so we get the ridiculous form 'de Burgh' invented by
historians and adopted by some of the fmaily in modern times)
. . .."
Can any one help me understand what Moncreiffe meant? I
would have thought that the "o" in "de Burgo" was simply the
ablative, following the preposition "de," and would have been so
whether the French was "de Bourg" or "du Bourg." ("De Bourg"
would have been ungrammatical in any event, since French, unlike
Latin, requires "the.")
Perhaps more of the the context would mitigate things, but Moncreiffe's
passage seems like nonsense to me. 'de' + ablative is the perfectly
obvious explanation, and the presence or absence of what becomes the
definite article in vernaculars is irrelevant in any Latin rendering
I've seen, even of the 12th or 13th centuries.
That leaves the question as to the best way to refer to the med-
ieval family today. Recent authorities seem closely divided between
"de Burgh" and "de Burgo." The latter at least has the advantage of
conforming to a medieval usage, though in Latin (which is certainly
to be eschewed as a general matter; we don't want to go around
calling people de Mortuo Mare, etc.) Even if we are going to keep the
name in French form but anglicize "bourg" to "burgh," wouldn't it
have to be "du Burgh" to reflect the required "the"?
As an original matter the best solution would probably have been
to retain "du Bourg," but may be too late in the day to advocate that
since no one does it. "De Burgh" seems a bastard hybrid with
nothing to recommend it. All things considered, I tend to opt for
"de Burgo." What do others think?
Well, I've always held that 'de + ablative' in charters is itself sort
of an inelegant cheat by the scribes of the day; what did it render from
contemporary vernacular speech? What is the usage of someone like Wace,
or vernacular prose chroniclers of the 13th century, dealing with a
similarly constructed name?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: "de Burgh"
Dear Brice ~
The form "de Burgo" is simply the Latin form of this name, not the
vernacular.
I have one instance of the vernacular form of the surname in my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004). I quote an ancient petition which
mentions the well known medieval noblewoman, Elizabeth de Burgh (née
de Clare) (died 1360):
"... Isabelle de Bourche [sic] ... Lady of Gower" [Reference: Rees
Cal. of Ancient Petitions Rel. Wales (Board of Celtic Studies, Hist. &
Law Ser. 28) (1975): 139-140, 173].
So, here it is "de Bourche." I'm sure with a little effort, more
examples of the surname in the vernacular can be found.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
The form "de Burgo" is simply the Latin form of this name, not the
vernacular.
I have one instance of the vernacular form of the surname in my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004). I quote an ancient petition which
mentions the well known medieval noblewoman, Elizabeth de Burgh (née
de Clare) (died 1360):
"... Isabelle de Bourche [sic] ... Lady of Gower" [Reference: Rees
Cal. of Ancient Petitions Rel. Wales (Board of Celtic Studies, Hist. &
Law Ser. 28) (1975): 139-140, 173].
So, here it is "de Bourche." I'm sure with a little effort, more
examples of the surname in the vernacular can be found.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: "de Burgh"
In article
<nathanieltaylor-BC9739.16325510012005@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
Well, now I'm wondering just what the rules for use of the the definite
article were in French (or Anglo-Norman) of the 12th / 13th centuries.
Just as Latin would use no article between preposition & noun (de
Burgo), perhaps our expectations of the definite article in modern
French (=> 'du Bourg') are anachronistic. It is possible that 'de
Burgh' or 'de Bourg' would not have offended the contemporary ear.
If we accept Doug's example of the name as it appears in a modern
English abstract of a 14th-century document as typical of authentic
documents, perhaps we do not see the definite article until later, at
least in English usage of French names? It would be interesting to
contrast late-medieval English documents with names of similar type with
those of the Ile de France; perhaps one could pinpiont this evolution.
I have no grammar or history of Old French to hand, but I suppose that's
where to pursue this further.
A wrench: perhaps the profile for evolving usage may differ between
masculine & feminine forms (de Burgo -> du Bourg, vs. de Turre -> de la
Tour)...
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
<nathanieltaylor-BC9739.16325510012005@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
In article
B1F75BF666FCFD4F9B3EA0D0A58482BD0382D61 ... dc.cov.com>,
bclagett@cov.com ("Clagett, Brice") wrote:
Can any one help me understand what Moncreiffe meant? I
would have thought that the "o" in "de Burgo" was simply the
ablative, following the preposition "de," and would have been so
whether the French was "de Bourg" or "du Bourg." ("De Bourg"
would have been ungrammatical in any event, since French, unlike
Latin, requires "the.")
....
Well, I've always held that 'de + ablative' in charters is itself sort
of an inelegant cheat by the scribes of the day; what did it render from
contemporary vernacular speech? What is the usage of someone like Wace,
or vernacular prose chroniclers of the 13th century, dealing with a
similarly constructed name?
Well, now I'm wondering just what the rules for use of the the definite
article were in French (or Anglo-Norman) of the 12th / 13th centuries.
Just as Latin would use no article between preposition & noun (de
Burgo), perhaps our expectations of the definite article in modern
French (=> 'du Bourg') are anachronistic. It is possible that 'de
Burgh' or 'de Bourg' would not have offended the contemporary ear.
If we accept Doug's example of the name as it appears in a modern
English abstract of a 14th-century document as typical of authentic
documents, perhaps we do not see the definite article until later, at
least in English usage of French names? It would be interesting to
contrast late-medieval English documents with names of similar type with
those of the Ile de France; perhaps one could pinpiont this evolution.
I have no grammar or history of Old French to hand, but I suppose that's
where to pursue this further.
A wrench: perhaps the profile for evolving usage may differ between
masculine & feminine forms (de Burgo -> du Bourg, vs. de Turre -> de la
Tour)...
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: "de Burgh"
In article
<nathanieltaylor-42B7AB.21235210012005@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
One clarification. I know the definite article existed in 12th-c
Anglo-Norman, and nouns were still declined vestigially (e.g. 'li
baruns', nominative singular for 'ille baronus'); the question is
whether, and in what circumstances, non-specific toponymic name elements
after the preposition 'de' would get an article, and what it would look
like.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
<nathanieltaylor-42B7AB.21235210012005@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
In article
nathanieltaylor-BC9739.16325510012005@n ... thlink.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
In article
B1F75BF666FCFD4F9B3EA0D0A58482BD0382D61 ... dc.cov.com>,
bclagett@cov.com ("Clagett, Brice") wrote:
Can any one help me understand what Moncreiffe meant? I
would have thought that the "o" in "de Burgo" was simply the
ablative, following the preposition "de," and would have been so
whether the French was "de Bourg" or "du Bourg." ("De Bourg"
would have been ungrammatical in any event, since French, unlike
Latin, requires "the.")
...
Well, I've always held that 'de + ablative' in charters is itself sort
of an inelegant cheat by the scribes of the day; what did it render from
contemporary vernacular speech? What is the usage of someone like Wace,
or vernacular prose chroniclers of the 13th century, dealing with a
similarly constructed name?
Well, now I'm wondering just what the rules for use of the the definite
article were in French (or Anglo-Norman) of the 12th / 13th centuries.
Just as Latin would use no article between preposition & noun (de
Burgo), perhaps our expectations of the definite article in modern
French (=> 'du Bourg') are anachronistic. It is possible that 'de
Burgh' or 'de Bourg' would not have offended the contemporary ear.
If we accept Doug's example of the name as it appears in a modern
English abstract of a 14th-century document as typical of authentic
documents, perhaps we do not see the definite article until later, at
least in English usage of French names? It would be interesting to
contrast late-medieval English documents with names of similar type with
those of the Ile de France; perhaps one could pinpiont this evolution.
I have no grammar or history of Old French to hand, but I suppose that's
where to pursue this further.
One clarification. I know the definite article existed in 12th-c
Anglo-Norman, and nouns were still declined vestigially (e.g. 'li
baruns', nominative singular for 'ille baronus'); the question is
whether, and in what circumstances, non-specific toponymic name elements
after the preposition 'de' would get an article, and what it would look
like.
A wrench: perhaps the profile for evolving usage may differ between
masculine & feminine forms (de Burgo -> du Bourg, vs. de Turre -> de la
Tour)...
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gjest
Re: "de Burgh"
Sometimes, I am amazed by our delusion that language was "defined" in
medieval times, especially since the spelling of our own American
language was not "defined" until our first, VERY! arbitrary dictionary!
Perhaps, we invented computers because we hoped they would create that
certitude that we crave but find absent in real life.......
CE Wood
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
medieval times, especially since the spelling of our own American
language was not "defined" until our first, VERY! arbitrary dictionary!
Perhaps, we invented computers because we hoped they would create that
certitude that we crave but find absent in real life.......
CE Wood
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article
nathanieltaylor-BC9739.16325510012005@n ... thlink.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
In article
B1F75BF666FCFD4F9B3EA0D0A58482BD0382D61 ... dc.cov.com>,
bclagett@cov.com ("Clagett, Brice") wrote:
Can any one help me understand what Moncreiffe meant? I
would have thought that the "o" in "de Burgo" was simply the
ablative, following the preposition "de," and would have been so
whether the French was "de Bourg" or "du Bourg." ("De Bourg"
would have been ungrammatical in any event, since French, unlike
Latin, requires "the.")
...
Well, I've always held that 'de + ablative' in charters is itself
sort
of an inelegant cheat by the scribes of the day; what did it render
from
contemporary vernacular speech? What is the usage of someone like
Wace,
or vernacular prose chroniclers of the 13th century, dealing with a
similarly constructed name?
Well, now I'm wondering just what the rules for use of the the
definite
article were in French (or Anglo-Norman) of the 12th / 13th
centuries.
Just as Latin would use no article between preposition & noun (de
Burgo), perhaps our expectations of the definite article in modern
French (=> 'du Bourg') are anachronistic. It is possible that 'de
Burgh' or 'de Bourg' would not have offended the contemporary ear.
If we accept Doug's example of the name as it appears in a modern
English abstract of a 14th-century document as typical of authentic
documents, perhaps we do not see the definite article until later, at
least in English usage of French names? It would be interesting to
contrast late-medieval English documents with names of similar type
with
those of the Ile de France; perhaps one could pinpiont this
evolution.
I have no grammar or history of Old French to hand, but I suppose
that's
where to pursue this further.
A wrench: perhaps the profile for evolving usage may differ between
masculine & feminine forms (de Burgo -> du Bourg, vs. de Turre -> de
la
Tour)...
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gjest
Re: "de Burgh"
In a message dated 11/01/05 19:45:43 GMT Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:
It's a long time since I have looked at it, but if I remember correctly the
book _Hubert de Burgh, A study in Constancy_ by Clarence Ellis (1952) had an
appendix with hundreds (well many tens anyway) of alternative forms/spellings of
the name de Burgh.
Adrian
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:
Subj: Re: "de Burgh"
Date: 11/01/05 19:45:43 GMT Standard Time
From: nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent from the Internet
In article <6779ec44.0501110957.8aa3b8f@posting.google.com>,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com (Pierre Aronax) wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor a écrit:
Well, now I'm wondering just what the rules for use of the the definite
article were in French (or Anglo-Norman) of the 12th / 13th centuries.
Just as Latin would use no article between preposition &noun (de
Burgo), perhaps our expectations of the definite article in modern
French (=> 'du Bourg') are anachronistic. It is possible that 'de
Burgh' or 'de Bourg' would not have offended the contemporary ear.
Mais la forme "de Bourg" n'offense point davantage l'oreille actuelle:
elle renvoie simplement à un toponyme "Bourg", distinct du toponyme
"Le Bourg" (bien que l'un comme l'autre dérivent également du nom
commun "le bourg"). Ainsi, si nous imaginons le comte (fictif) de la
ville de Bourg-la-Reine, il sera "le comte DE Bourg-la-Reine", alors
que, par exemple, une famille française toujours existante qui tire
son nom d'un toponyme "Le Bourg", en Nivernais, s'appelle "DU Bourg de
Bozas".
This is a good point, but one wonders whether this distinction would
have been understood by medieval speakers. The question becomes, at
what point does a toponym become a fixed, indeclinable proper name,
rather a common noun it had originally been. Brice's original question
can only be solved by reviewing contemporary usages, and perhaps
ultimately only on a case-by-case basis. I think people are still
undecided as to which 'burg' gave its name to the family in question.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
It's a long time since I have looked at it, but if I remember correctly the
book _Hubert de Burgh, A study in Constancy_ by Clarence Ellis (1952) had an
appendix with hundreds (well many tens anyway) of alternative forms/spellings of
the name de Burgh.
Adrian
-
Peter Stewart
Re: "de Burgh"
""Clagett, Brice"" <bclagett@cov.com> wrote in message
news:B1F75BF666FCFD4F9B3EA0D0A58482BD0382D617@cbiexm01dc.cov.com...
Moncreiffe was a rather stubborn scholar in some respects - in a child-like
way, he would cleave to what he felt was the simplest or most romantic
explanation of something, even after acknowledging that it might not be the
best.
In this case, if he _had_ found an explicit medieval statement to the above
effect, this would probably have been from the late-14th or more likely 15th
century and no more reliable than his own imagination.
The distinction that would have originally prompted the form "de Burgo" was
more plausibly that the individual named was thought to belong to the town
in question, rather than the town belonging to him - in other words, he was
"from Burgh" rather than "of Burgh".
Assuming the surname denoted a connection to one of the places called Burgh,
I don't see a problem - but even if you take a different view, this horse
has nevertheless bolted long ago, pulling off the stable door as it went.
Peter Stewart
news:B1F75BF666FCFD4F9B3EA0D0A58482BD0382D617@cbiexm01dc.cov.com...
Iain Moncreiffe, in "The High Kings of Ireland," Burke's Irish
Family Records (1976) p. 44 n.33, refers to "the great Norman
family of du Bourg (called 'de Burgo in charter-Latin to indicate
by the final 'o' that in French it is 'du' and not 'de'. just as 'de
Haya' means 'de la Haye' -- but no scholars will get this into
their heads, so we get the ridiculous form 'de Burgh' invented by
historians and adopted by some of the fmaily in modern times)
. . .."
Can any one help me understand what Moncreiffe meant? I
would have thought that the "o" in "de Burgo" was simply the
ablative, following the preposition "de," and would have been so
whether the French was "de Bourg" or "du Bourg." ("De Bourg"
would have been ungrammatical in any event, since French, unlike
Latin, requires "the.")
Moncreiffe was a rather stubborn scholar in some respects - in a child-like
way, he would cleave to what he felt was the simplest or most romantic
explanation of something, even after acknowledging that it might not be the
best.
In this case, if he _had_ found an explicit medieval statement to the above
effect, this would probably have been from the late-14th or more likely 15th
century and no more reliable than his own imagination.
The distinction that would have originally prompted the form "de Burgo" was
more plausibly that the individual named was thought to belong to the town
in question, rather than the town belonging to him - in other words, he was
"from Burgh" rather than "of Burgh".
That leaves the question as to the best way to refer to the med-
ieval family today. Recent authorities seem closely divided between
"de Burgh" and "de Burgo." The latter at least has the advantage of
conforming to a medieval usage, though in Latin (which is certainly
to be eschewed as a general matter; we don't want to go around
calling people de Mortuo Mare, etc.) Even if we are going to keep the
name in French form but anglicize "bourg" to "burgh," wouldn't it
have to be "du Burgh" to reflect the required "the"?
As an original matter the best solution would probably have been
to retain "du Bourg," but may be too late in the day to advocate that
since no one does it. "De Burgh" seems a bastard hybrid with
nothing to recommend it. All things considered, I tend to opt for
"de Burgo." What do others think?
Assuming the surname denoted a connection to one of the places called Burgh,
I don't see a problem - but even if you take a different view, this horse
has nevertheless bolted long ago, pulling off the stable door as it went.
Peter Stewart