Can anyone tell me if Dorcas the Latin form of Dorothy?
dm
dorcas/dorothy
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Leticia Cluff
Re: dorcas/dorothy
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:59:09 -0500, Dantemortem
<dantemortem@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I can tell you.
No, it's not.
Dorcas is from the Greek "dorkas" meaning a roe or gazelle.
Dorothy is ultimately from the Greek too, but it's a completely
different name, Dorothea, an inversion of Theodora, meaning
a gift of God.
Tish
<dantemortem@gmail.com> wrote:
Can anyone tell me if Dorcas the Latin form of Dorothy?
Yes, I can tell you.
No, it's not.
Dorcas is from the Greek "dorkas" meaning a roe or gazelle.
Dorothy is ultimately from the Greek too, but it's a completely
different name, Dorothea, an inversion of Theodora, meaning
a gift of God.
Tish
-
Dantemortem
Re: dorcas/dorothy
thx Tish, I came across it in a baptism and wondered if it might be a
Dorothy I had in mind.
best
dm
On Nov 12, 2007 2:08 PM, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
Dorothy I had in mind.
best
dm
On Nov 12, 2007 2:08 PM, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:59:09 -0500, Dantemortem
dantemortem@gmail.com> wrote:
Can anyone tell me if Dorcas the Latin form of Dorothy?
Yes, I can tell you.
No, it's not.
Dorcas is from the Greek "dorkas" meaning a roe or gazelle.
Dorothy is ultimately from the Greek too, but it's a completely
different name, Dorothea, an inversion of Theodora, meaning
a gift of God.
Tish
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: dorcas/dorothy
In article <mailman.420.1194903500.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Dantemortem <dantemortem@gmail.com> wrote:
They are distinct in origin and in usage as you've been told, but for
what it's worth I know of a 17th-century New Englander (an ancestor of
mine) who appears to have been known by both Dorcas and Dorothy: the
wife of Joseph-2 Phippen (son of David-1 Phippen, carpenter, of Boston).
A wife of this man appears in contemporary records by both names and it
appears, from chronology and the types of records, that the same person
is being referred to by both names. This may be an unusual case, though.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Dantemortem <dantemortem@gmail.com> wrote:
thx Tish, I came across it in a baptism and wondered if it might be a
Dorothy I had in mind.
They are distinct in origin and in usage as you've been told, but for
what it's worth I know of a 17th-century New Englander (an ancestor of
mine) who appears to have been known by both Dorcas and Dorothy: the
wife of Joseph-2 Phippen (son of David-1 Phippen, carpenter, of Boston).
A wife of this man appears in contemporary records by both names and it
appears, from chronology and the types of records, that the same person
is being referred to by both names. This may be an unusual case, though.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Gjest
Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH
On Nov 12, 9:05 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't see the two as being analogous. Beth and Betsey are known
shortening nicknames for Elizabeth. Neither is an anglicized version
of the longer name. On the other hand, Dorothy and Dorcas are
completely distinct names, neither is an anglicized version of the
other, and both were used independently by Colonial American
families. There is no inherent equivalence as there is with
Elizabeth and its shorter forms.
taf
In support, I offer that Dorothy was probably *anglicized* from Dorcas,
as I also have a Dorcas which was so changed later. As a case in point,
I found a Betsey, with Irish ancestry, and could not find her in earlier
census records until I realized she was a Beth m. to the same man with
the same children of ten-years' earlier ages, and another ten earlier
show her as ElizaBETH.
I don't see the two as being analogous. Beth and Betsey are known
shortening nicknames for Elizabeth. Neither is an anglicized version
of the longer name. On the other hand, Dorothy and Dorcas are
completely distinct names, neither is an anglicized version of the
other, and both were used independently by Colonial American
families. There is no inherent equivalence as there is with
Elizabeth and its shorter forms.
taf
-
John Brandon
Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH
I don't see the two as being analogous. Beth and Betsey are known
shortening nicknames for Elizabeth. Neither is an anglicized version
of the longer name. On the other hand, Dorothy and Dorcas are
completely distinct names, neither is an anglicized version of the
other, and both were used independently by Colonial American
families. There is no inherent equivalence as there is with
Elizabeth and its shorter forms.
Yep, ... and who doesn't know Beth and Betsy are derivatives of
Elizabeth? Bet he thinks Molly and Polly are "real" names, as
well ...
-
Gjest
Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH
On Nov 13, 1:41 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have seen some odd local equivalencies - in some W. Pa. German
families, Jane was used for girls whose formal name was Christina.
Without knowing the specifics, I have to suspect that the Dorcas/
Dorothy thing Nat reported is either 1) a personal/regional quirk, or
2) a case of recorders reconstructing records from ambiguous shorthand
abbreviations.
taf
I don't see the two as being analogous. Beth and Betsey are known
shortening nicknames for Elizabeth. Neither is an anglicized version
of the longer name. On the other hand, Dorothy and Dorcas are
completely distinct names, neither is an anglicized version of the
other, and both were used independently by Colonial American
families. There is no inherent equivalence as there is with
Elizabeth and its shorter forms.
Yep, ... and who doesn't know Beth and Betsy are derivatives of
Elizabeth? Bet he thinks Molly and Polly are "real" names, as
well ...
I have seen some odd local equivalencies - in some W. Pa. German
families, Jane was used for girls whose formal name was Christina.
Without knowing the specifics, I have to suspect that the Dorcas/
Dorothy thing Nat reported is either 1) a personal/regional quirk, or
2) a case of recorders reconstructing records from ambiguous shorthand
abbreviations.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH
On Nov 13, 8:38 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Depending on the situation, the last could be an inappropriate
elaboration on the nickname or just one of those 'things' that
sometimes happen - I know of a case where there were two sisters who
both went by arbitrarily assigned nicknames from such an early age
that when shown their original names, they didn't remember which
belonged to which. That can not be taken as evidence that Mary was
an 'anglicization' of Salome. A point that is often confused - an
instance does not make a general rule.
Which ignores the whole problem of the recording of the information
provided - you do know that the record you see is not what was
collected when the census taker went house to house, don't you?
And I have seen a death record where the father is mistakenly given
the mother's surname, and vice versa. What is your point?
So you were just throwing a random fact irrelevant to the discussion
of other names? Now I understand why it seemed not to apply to the
situation being discussed.
Do you know the difference between substantive discussion and
pointless nitpicking over typos?
You are quite right. It is cryptic. I dare you, the self-appointed
champion of the English language, to diagram that puppy. I would much
rather you misspell a word than inflict an incomprehensible
monstrosity such as this on us. (And you are not suggesting that
middle names were used in the 17th century are you?)
taf
--- t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 13, 1:41 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the two as being analogous. Beth and Betsey are known
shortening nicknames for Elizabeth. Neither is an anglicized version
of the longer name. On the other hand, Dorothy and Dorcas are
completely distinct names, neither is an anglicized version of the
other, and both were used independently by Colonial American
families. There is no inherent equivalence as there is with
Elizabeth and its shorter forms.
Yep, ... and who doesn't know Beth and Betsy are derivatives of
Elizabeth? Bet he thinks Molly and Polly are "real" names, as
well ...
I have seen some odd local equivalencies - in some W. Pa. German
families, Jane was used for girls whose formal name was Christina.
Without knowing the specifics, I have to suspect that the Dorcas/
Dorothy thing Nat reported is either 1) a personal/regional quirk, or
2) a case of recorders reconstructing records from ambiguous shorthand
abbreviations.
BA: as a matter of fact, I do think that "Molly and Polly are 'real' names,
as well. Doesn't everyone?
BA: Aside from these snippets from snippet-makers, the real point is
that in my case I have seen Dorcas/Dorrey Ann/Dorothy.
Depending on the situation, the last could be an inappropriate
elaboration on the nickname or just one of those 'things' that
sometimes happen - I know of a case where there were two sisters who
both went by arbitrarily assigned nicknames from such an early age
that when shown their original names, they didn't remember which
belonged to which. That can not be taken as evidence that Mary was
an 'anglicization' of Salome. A point that is often confused - an
instance does not make a general rule.
In the case
of census records in America, I have seen people answer census records
all kinds of different ways with *real* names.
Which ignores the whole problem of the recording of the information
provided - you do know that the record you see is not what was
collected when the census taker went house to house, don't you?
I have seen [ actually held
offical copies from state archives ] death records in which the informant
said so-in-so was Betsey when census records said Beth and other census
records said Elizabeth, or Eliza or Lizzie, for Heaven's sake!
And I have seen a death record where the father is mistakenly given
the mother's surname, and vice versa. What is your point?
Is this not
valuable KNOWLEDGE to gen-medieval genealogists who do NOT know?
So you were just throwing a random fact irrelevant to the discussion
of other names? Now I understand why it seemed not to apply to the
situation being discussed.
I think so, and also know the difference between *do* and *due* and *dew*!
Do you?
Do you know the difference between substantive discussion and
pointless nitpicking over typos?
BA: my last point is cryptic: when the Visitation taker showed up in Suffolk
and/or Yorkshire, and asked Dear John who were his parents and siblings
and children, I bet that a John who was a Younger and he was jealous that
his sibling had that name with William as a middle, that he told the Visitation
taker that his sibling was William and ignored the family tradition that ole
J.W. was John to the family and William to aunt Liza and J.W. to his dear ole
Mum :0
You are quite right. It is cryptic. I dare you, the self-appointed
champion of the English language, to diagram that puppy. I would much
rather you misspell a word than inflict an incomprehensible
monstrosity such as this on us. (And you are not suggesting that
middle names were used in the 17th century are you?)
taf