Ralph --> Radulphus in Latinizations: why?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Ralph --> Radulphus in Latinizations: why?

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 mai 2005 05:47:00

In documents in which English or Norman names were Latinized we see
Radulphus for people named Ralph (or even, I suppose, Hrolf).

What is the reason for the adding of the extra syllable in the middle,
and is there a name for this process?

Michael Ward

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Ralph --> Radulphus in Latinizations: why?

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 24 mai 2005 12:38:42

In article <4292aff1.172304721@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
mjward@hidden-knowledge.com wrote:

In documents in which English or Norman names were Latinized we see
Radulphus for people named Ralph (or even, I suppose, Hrolf).

What is the reason for the adding of the extra syllable in the middle,
and is there a name for this process?

It's actually the other way around. Like many other early medieval
two-root Germanic names, this lost a syllable when it evolved into its
most common later English form. Its early Germanic two-root form is
rendered by anthroponymists as hrod-wulf, hence the extra syllable in
the usual Latin rendering, which remained the same throughout medieval
Europe even though in English (parallel to its transitions in other
vernacular languages) it was elided ultimately to 'Ralf' and in some
spoken usage even the 'l' drops out, getting 'Rafe'.

As for the Norse name hrolfr (like the guy who was ceded Normandy by
Charles the Simple), I think the CW is that this is not originally the
same name as (Continental) Germanic hrod-wulf, though the two became
merged in the Frenchified Norman population in the 10th century.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Ralph --> Radulphus in Latinizations: why?

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 24 mai 2005 17:55:40

On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:38:42 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
<nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

It's actually the other way around. Like many other early medieval
two-root Germanic names, this lost a syllable when it evolved into its
most common later English form. Its early Germanic two-root form is
rendered by anthroponymists as hrod-wulf, hence the extra syllable in
the usual Latin rendering, which remained the same throughout medieval
Europe even though in English (parallel to its transitions in other
vernacular languages) it was elided ultimately to 'Ralf' and in some
spoken usage even the 'l' drops out, getting 'Rafe'.

As for the Norse name hrolfr (like the guy who was ceded Normandy by
Charles the Simple), I think the CW is that this is not originally the
same name as (Continental) Germanic hrod-wulf, though the two became
merged in the Frenchified Norman population in the 10th century.

Although I admit that I do not have the expertise to discuss this in
detail, this looks misleading to me. To my knowledge, the spelling
"Hrólfr" is not known before the twelfth or thirteenth century, and at
that time it was clearly intended as the Old Norse form for the name
having Latin form Rodulfus. For example, the character who appears in
Beowulf as Hrothulf [Hroþulf] son of Halga appears in the later
Icelandic sagas as Hrólfr Kraki son of Helgi. Since the spelling
"Hrólfr" seems clearly to be equivalent to Rodulfus at its earliest
appearance, I do not know what evidence there would be that it had a
different origin. Note that there was a Danish raider in France in
the NINTH century whose name was Latinized as Rodulfus (d. 873, son of
king Harald/Herioldus and a member of the Danish royal family), so
this name was in use by Vikings well before the Normans became
Frenchified, and was therefore not exclusively a continental name.

As for the name Ralf/Ralph, it is most commonly Latinized as
Radulfus/Radulphus. Whether or not the difference in the initial
vowel is important is unclear to me.

Finally, the guy who was ceded Normandy by Charles the Simple was
named Rollo in contemporary sources, and I think it is misleading to
refer to him as Hrólfr. The suggestion that "Rollo" and "Hrólfr" were
the same name is problematic, and there are different opinions about
how the name "Rollo" became "Hrólfr" in late Icelandic sources.

Stewart Baldwin

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Ralph --> Radulphus in Latinizations: why?

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 24 mai 2005 18:53:52

In article <mhj691hm5nr9t45rv36s247gcngdcbatcv@4ax.com>,
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:38:42 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

It's actually the other way around. Like many other early medieval
two-root Germanic names, this lost a syllable when it evolved into its
most common later English form. Its early Germanic two-root form is
rendered by anthroponymists as hrod-wulf, hence the extra syllable in
the usual Latin rendering, which remained the same throughout medieval
Europe even though in English (parallel to its transitions in other
vernacular languages) it was elided ultimately to 'Ralf' and in some
spoken usage even the 'l' drops out, getting 'Rafe'.

As for the Norse name hrolfr (like the guy who was ceded Normandy by
Charles the Simple), I think the CW is that this is not originally the
same name as (Continental) Germanic hrod-wulf, though the two became
merged in the Frenchified Norman population in the 10th century.

Although I admit that I do not have the expertise to discuss this in
detail, this looks misleading to me. To my knowledge, the spelling
"Hrólfr" is not known before the twelfth or thirteenth century, and at
that time it was clearly intended as the Old Norse form for the name
having Latin form Rodulfus. For example, the character who appears in
Beowulf as Hrothulf [Hroþulf] son of Halga appears in the later
Icelandic sagas as Hrólfr Kraki son of Helgi. Since the spelling
"Hrólfr" seems clearly to be equivalent to Rodulfus at its earliest
appearance, I do not know what evidence there would be that it had a
different origin. Note that there was a Danish raider in France in
the NINTH century whose name was Latinized as Rodulfus (d. 873, son of
king Harald/Herioldus and a member of the Danish royal family), so
this name was in use by Vikings well before the Normans became
Frenchified, and was therefore not exclusively a continental name.

As for the name Ralf/Ralph, it is most commonly Latinized as
Radulfus/Radulphus. Whether or not the difference in the initial
vowel is important is unclear to me.

Finally, the guy who was ceded Normandy by Charles the Simple was
named Rollo in contemporary sources, and I think it is misleading to
refer to him as Hrólfr. The suggestion that "Rollo" and "Hrólfr" were
the same name is problematic, and there are different opinions about
how the name "Rollo" became "Hrólfr" in late Icelandic sources.

Thanks for correcting me. I misremembered previous discussions here (and
possibly elsewhere). What I had thought was that 'Rollo' in the
Frankish sources must have been used to Latinize some Norse name that
was NOT a cognate of hrodwulf, or else the Franks would have called him
Radulfus; and therefore also that the later use of hrolfr for his name
suggested that hrolfr must have had a different origin (whether or not
the conqueror of Normandy was actually named some form of hrolfr). But
I was not aware of your example of hrothulf => hrolfr, which seems
pretty clear.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Gjest

Re: Ralph --> Radulphus in Latinizations: why?

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 mai 2005 23:18:03

Thank you for a complete (more than complete) answer. I -think- both
Nat and Stewart agree on hrod-wulf as the original form of the name
that comes down in English as Ralph. Am I correct? Thus Nat's original
answer answers my question.

It's not at all anything I would have expected, and this is the best
of all usenet groups.

Mike Ward


On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:53:52 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
<nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <mhj691hm5nr9t45rv36s247gcngdcbatcv@4ax.com>,
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:38:42 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

It's actually the other way around. Like many other early medieval
two-root Germanic names, this lost a syllable when it evolved into its
most common later English form. Its early Germanic two-root form is
rendered by anthroponymists as hrod-wulf, hence the extra syllable in
the usual Latin rendering, which remained the same throughout medieval
Europe even though in English (parallel to its transitions in other
vernacular languages) it was elided ultimately to 'Ralf' and in some
spoken usage even the 'l' drops out, getting 'Rafe'.

As for the Norse name hrolfr (like the guy who was ceded Normandy by
Charles the Simple), I think the CW is that this is not originally the
same name as (Continental) Germanic hrod-wulf, though the two became
merged in the Frenchified Norman population in the 10th century.

Although I admit that I do not have the expertise to discuss this in
detail, this looks misleading to me. To my knowledge, the spelling
"Hrólfr" is not known before the twelfth or thirteenth century, and at
that time it was clearly intended as the Old Norse form for the name
having Latin form Rodulfus. For example, the character who appears in
Beowulf as Hrothulf [Hroþulf] son of Halga appears in the later
Icelandic sagas as Hrólfr Kraki son of Helgi. Since the spelling
"Hrólfr" seems clearly to be equivalent to Rodulfus at its earliest
appearance, I do not know what evidence there would be that it had a
different origin. Note that there was a Danish raider in France in
the NINTH century whose name was Latinized as Rodulfus (d. 873, son of
king Harald/Herioldus and a member of the Danish royal family), so
this name was in use by Vikings well before the Normans became
Frenchified, and was therefore not exclusively a continental name.

As for the name Ralf/Ralph, it is most commonly Latinized as
Radulfus/Radulphus. Whether or not the difference in the initial
vowel is important is unclear to me.

Finally, the guy who was ceded Normandy by Charles the Simple was
named Rollo in contemporary sources, and I think it is misleading to
refer to him as Hrólfr. The suggestion that "Rollo" and "Hrólfr" were
the same name is problematic, and there are different opinions about
how the name "Rollo" became "Hrólfr" in late Icelandic sources.

Thanks for correcting me. I misremembered previous discussions here (and
possibly elsewhere). What I had thought was that 'Rollo' in the
Frankish sources must have been used to Latinize some Norse name that
was NOT a cognate of hrodwulf, or else the Franks would have called him
Radulfus; and therefore also that the later use of hrolfr for his name
suggested that hrolfr must have had a different origin (whether or not
the conqueror of Normandy was actually named some form of hrolfr). But
I was not aware of your example of hrothulf => hrolfr, which seems
pretty clear.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Peter Stewart

Re: Ralph --> Radulphus in Latinizations: why?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 mai 2005 06:12:55

Stewart Baldwin wrote:

<snip>

As for the name Ralf/Ralph, it is most commonly Latinized as
Radulfus/Radulphus. Whether or not the difference in the initial
vowel is important is unclear to me.

I don't think it is more than an orthographic shift, possibly not even
pronounced differently as are the names Rolf and Ralph today.

The form "hrad-wulf" is indexed along with variants of "hrod-wulf" by
the editors of _Das Verbrüderungsbuch der Abtei Reichenau_, MGH Libri
memoriales et necrologia, Nova series 1 (1979).

By the ninth century the vowels used in different people's names are
more a matter of spelling convention than a distinction of etymology,
for instance in Robert the Strong (Rotbertus or Ruodbertus in the
majority of sources) and Paschasius Radbert(us), abbot of Corbie.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»