Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 nov 2007 22:10:04

Dear Newsgroup ~

We're often treated to Latin forms of names because historians and
genealogists are a bit sloppy in their presentation of medieval
records.

One such name that invariably slip below the radar is the Latin name
Alphonso which in medieval times in France and England was Alphonse
(or Alfonse) (and variant forms). We are told that King Edward I had
a son named Alphonso or that a member of the Vere family was named
Alphonso de Vere. Yet whenever I see these individuals' names in the
vernacular, it is always Alphonse, Alfonse, Auffon, Auphoms, but never
Alphonso. This tells me that the Latin form of the name Alphonso was
not used in England in vernacular language.

A good case in point is a letter written presumably by Hugh le
Despenser during the War of Saint Sardos which occurred between
1323-1325. In this letter, reference is made to "mons' Auffon
Despaigne, votre cousin." [Reference: Chaplais War of Saint-Sardos
1323-1325 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 87) (1954):1].

http://books.google.com/books?id=edcZAA ... s=1#search

I assume the person so referenced is Alphonso XI, King of Castile (I
have not checked the full copy of the book to see the editor's
identification of the person). Yet we see the person is called Auffon
in the letter, not Alphonso. On page 16 of this same work, there is
another reference to the same person as "monsire Aumphons Despaigne."

See the following link for that reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=edcZAA ... s=1#search

A similar reference is found for Alphonse de Vere (died 1328), the
well known younger son of the Earl of Oxford. Brault quotes a
contemporary roll of arms which styles him "Aumphons de
Veer" [Reference: Brault, Rolls of Arms Edward I (1272-1307) 2 (1997):
456].

I believe this reference is taken from the Galloway Roll, a transcript
of which is kindly provided by Brian Timms at the following weblink:

http://perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms ... wayGA2.htm

For a reference to King Edward I's son as "Alfons," see Wright, Feudal
Manuals of English History (1872): 60, which may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=J1wDAA ... h#PPA60,M1

Curiously, while English and Americans trip over the Latin form,
Alphonso, it seems that the French historians and genealogists do
not. They regularly refer to King Louis VIII's son as Alphonse (or
Alfonse) de Poitiers, not as Alphonso. Ditto Alphonse de Brienne,
Count of Eu, uncle of Sir Henry de Beaumont (died 1340), 1st Lord
Beaumont in England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 nov 2007 22:36:02

On Nov 29, 1:09 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
This tells me that the Latin form of the name Alphonso was
not used in England in vernacular language.

A good case in point is a letter written presumably by Hugh le
Despenser during the War of Saint Sardos which occurred between
1323-1325. In this letter, reference is made to "mons' Auffon
Despaigne, votre cousin." [Reference: Chaplais War of Saint-Sardos
1323-1325 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 87) (1954):1].

http://books.google.com/books?id=edcZAA ... oi&q=cos...

I assume the person so referenced is Alphonso XI, King of Castile

Let me get this clear. The 'correct' English vernacular name form is
demonstrated by a document written in French making reference to a
Castillian king?

Out of curiousity, what is the appropriate name of the King of Aragon
who succeeded Sancho Ramirez?

taf
taf

John Briggs

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av John Briggs » 29 nov 2007 22:48:03

Douglas Richardson wrote:
I assume the person so referenced is Alphonso XI, King of Castile

Do you perhaps mean Alfonso XI of Castile, King of Castile and León?

Incidentally, although he is usually styled "Alfonso XI of Castile", he
wasn't the 11th Alfonso of anywhere in particular...

[I think he was Alfonso V of Castile, but don't quote me...]
--
John Briggs

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 29 nov 2007 23:23:01

In article
<76450ba2-0831-4cf3-8ab4-7d64b2acac7d@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

We're often treated to Latin forms of names because historians and
genealogists are a bit sloppy in their presentation of medieval
records.

One such name that invariably slip below the radar is the Latin name
Alphonso which in medieval times in France and England was Alphonse
(or Alfonse) (and variant forms). We are told that King Edward I had
a son named Alphonso or that a member of the Vere family was named
Alphonso de Vere. Yet whenever I see these individuals' names in the
vernacular, it is always Alphonse, Alfonse, Auffon, Auphoms, but never
Alphonso. This tells me that the Latin form of the name Alphonso was
not used in England in vernacular language.

A good case in point is a letter written presumably by Hugh le
Despenser during the War of Saint Sardos which occurred between
1323-1325. In this letter, reference is made to "mons' Auffon
Despaigne, votre cousin." [Reference: Chaplais War of Saint-Sardos
1323-1325 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 87) (1954):1].

http://books.google.com/books?id=edcZAA ... sin&pgis=1
#search

I assume the person so referenced is Alphonso XI, King of Castile (I
have not checked the full copy of the book to see the editor's
identification of the person). Yet we see the person is called Auffon
in the letter, not Alphonso. On page 16 of this same work, there is
another reference to the same person as "monsire Aumphons Despaigne."

See the following link for that reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=edcZAA ... &pgis=1#se
arch

A similar reference is found for Alphonse de Vere (died 1328), the
well known younger son of the Earl of Oxford. Brault quotes a
contemporary roll of arms which styles him "Aumphons de
Veer" [Reference: Brault, Rolls of Arms Edward I (1272-1307) 2 (1997):
456].

I believe this reference is taken from the Galloway Roll, a transcript
of which is kindly provided by Brian Timms at the following weblink:

http://perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms ... wayGA2.htm

For a reference to King Edward I's son as "Alfons," see Wright, Feudal
Manuals of English History (1872): 60, which may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=J1wDAA ... =Wright+Fe
udal+Manuals+of+English#PPA60,M1

Curiously, while English and Americans trip over the Latin form,
Alphonso, it seems that the French historians and genealogists do
not. They regularly refer to King Louis VIII's son as Alphonse (or
Alfonse) de Poitiers, not as Alphonso. Ditto Alphonse de Brienne,
Count of Eu, uncle of Sir Henry de Beaumont (died 1340), 1st Lord
Beaumont in England.

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin texts
of the middle ages).

'Alphonso' was in vogue in English in the 19th & early 20th c. (it is
not in use by anyone sensible writing in English now, to refer to any
Iberian kings of that name). It was NOT derived from the Latin forms of
this name at all, but a hybrid combination of vernacular French and
Iberian forms. Plenty of English-speaking people were baptized
'Alphonso' in the 19th century, so one must not sneer at the form too
much.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 nov 2007 23:24:02

Dear Newsgroup ~

We're often treated to Latin forms of names because historians and
genealogists are a bit sloppy in their presentation of medieval
records.

One such name that invariably slips below the radar is the Latin name
Alphonso which in medieval times in France and England was Alphonse
(or Alfonse) (and variant forms). We are told that King Edward I had
a son named Alphonso or that a member of the Vere family was named
Alphonso de Vere. Yet whenever I see these individuals' names in the
vernacular, it is always Alphonse, Alfonse, Auffon, Auphoms, but never
Alphonso. This tells me that the Latin form of the name Alphonso was
not used in England in vernacular language.

A good case in point is a letter written presumably by Hugh le
Despenser during the War of Saint Sardos which occurred between
1323-1325. In this letter, reference is made to "mons' Auffon
Despaigne, votre cousin." [Reference: Chaplais War of Saint-Sardos
1323-1325 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 87) (1954):1].

http://books.google.com/books?id=edcZAA ... s=1#search

I assume the person so referenced is Alphonso XI, King of Castile (I
have not checked the full copy of the book to see the editor's
identification of the person). Yet we see the person is called Auffon
in the letter, not Alphonso. On page 16 of this same work, there is
another reference to the same person as "monsire Aumphons Despaigne."

See the following link for that reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=edcZAA ... s=1#search

A similar reference is found for Alphonse de Vere (died 1328), the
well known younger son of the Earl of Oxford. Brault quotes a
contemporary roll of arms which styles him "Aumphons de
Veer" [Reference: Brault, Rolls of Arms Edward I (1272-1307) 2 (1997):
456].

I believe this reference is taken from the Galloway Roll, a transcript
of which is kindly provided by Brian Timms at the following weblink:

http://perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms ... wayGA2.htm

For a reference to King Edward I's son as "Alfons," see Wright, Feudal
Manuals of English History (1872): 60, which may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=J1wDAA ... h#PPA60,M1

Curiously, while English and Americans trip over the Latin form,
Alphonso, it seems that the French historians and genealogists do
not. They regularly refer to King Louis VIII's son as Alphonse (or
Alfonse) de Poitiers, not as Alphonso. Ditto Alphonse de Brienne,
Count of Eu, uncle of Sir Henry de Beaumont (died 1340), 1st Lord
Beaumont in England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Leticia Cluff

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 29 nov 2007 23:58:52

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:23:01 -0500, Nathaniel Taylor
<nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote:
'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin texts
of the middle ages).

Begins with a different letter? You mean Idelfonsus and such forms, I
suppose. Another form used in Latin sources is "Adefonsus."
See the last line of this picture from the beautifully illuminated
"Crónica Albeldense."

http://www.vallenajerilla.com/albeldens ... aurbem.jpg

When "Alphonso" is used in Latin sources, it is the dative or ablative
case of the name. Surely it is normal practice nowadays to use the
nominative case "Alphonsus" when writing abut the Latin name or the
men who bore it?

'Alphonso' was in vogue in English in the 19th & early 20th c. (it is
not in use by anyone sensible writing in English now, to refer to any
Iberian kings of that name). It was NOT derived from the Latin forms of
this name at all, but a hybrid combination of vernacular French and
Iberian forms. Plenty of English-speaking people were baptized
'Alphonso' in the 19th century, so one must not sneer at the form too
much.

I can imagine that the various forms of the name underwent a decline
in frequency when it became synonymous with "pimp" in many languages.
Blame that on the play "Monsieur Alphonse" (1873) by Alexandre Dumas
fils.

Tish

Douglas Richardson

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 nov 2007 00:12:03

On Nov 29, 2:35 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

< Let me get this clear. The 'correct' English vernacular name form is
< demonstrated by a document written in French making reference to a
< Castillian king?
<
< taf

Dear Todd ~

French (or what is called Anglo-Norman French) was the day-to-day
language of the English court and the English barons down to the reign
of King Richard II.

These were French speaking people. Latin was their second tongue.

King Henry IV who came to power in 1399 was the first monarch in 300
years who spoke English. He was equally fluent in French I might add.

Thus, French would be considered the vernacular language of high born
English people before 1400, not English.

If you need to look up the definition of vernacular, I suggest you go
to the following weblink:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vernacular

I trust that answers your question.

Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 nov 2007 00:31:02

On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
<
< 'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
< with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
< almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
< of the middle ages).
<
< Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso in Latin
charters:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... Alfonso%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... s=1#search

http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... s=1#search

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... s=1#search

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 30 nov 2007 00:34:50

In article <tbfuk3p0tf9fab3umicqshj41t0927vamb@4ax.com>,
Leticia Cluff <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:23:01 -0500, Nathaniel Taylor
nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote:
'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin texts
of the middle ages).

Begins with a different letter? You mean Idelfonsus and such forms, I
suppose. Another form used in Latin sources is "Adefonsus."

'Ildefonsus' far outstrips 'Adefonsus' in the sources I'm familiar with.
It is the form 'Ildefonsus' that is reflected in the (current)
place-name San Ildefonso (Segovia).

See the last line of this picture from the beautifully illuminated
"Crónica Albeldense."

http://www.vallenajerilla.com/albeldens ... aurbem.jpg

When "Alphonso" is used in Latin sources, it is the dative or ablative
case of the name. Surely it is normal practice nowadays to use the
nominative case "Alphonsus" when writing abut the Latin name or the
men who bore it?

Theoretically. But I have almost never seen the form Alphonsus in a
medieval Latin text (and I have read thousands of medieval Iberian
charters).

'Alphonso' was in vogue in English in the 19th & early 20th c. (it is
not in use by anyone sensible writing in English now, to refer to any
Iberian kings of that name). It was NOT derived from the Latin forms of
this name at all, but a hybrid combination of vernacular French and
Iberian forms. Plenty of English-speaking people were baptized
'Alphonso' in the 19th century, so one must not sneer at the form too
much.

I can imagine that the various forms of the name underwent a decline
in frequency when it became synonymous with "pimp" in many languages.
Blame that on the play "Monsieur Alphonse" (1873) by Alexandre Dumas
fils.

Interesting! I wasn't aware of that.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 30 nov 2007 00:40:48

In article
<59c36116-7e51-4435-921c-c61ea678fa56@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Dixit insipiens:

On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
of the middle ages).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso in Latin
charters:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... go+Alfonso%2
2

http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... =ego+Alfon
so&pgis=1#search

http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... =ego+Alfon
so&pgis=1#search

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... =%22ego+Al
fonso%22&pgis=1#search

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

Dear Douglas ~

Alfonso, you say. Before you were talking about 'Alphonso'.

And, you might want to pay attention to the language used in the
charters you have just quoted.

Neither 'Alphonso' nor 'Alfonso' are THE Latin form of this name.
Neither one was anywhere close, in frequency, to the normative Latin
forms of this name.

Best always,

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Francisco Tavares de Alme

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Francisco Tavares de Alme » 30 nov 2007 01:34:02

On 29 Nov, 23:30, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
of the middle ages).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso in Latin
charters:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... =%22ego+...

http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... so%22&q=...

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


I do not know latin but you are overlooking some basic facts. Latin
was spoken in ancient Rome and if you want to establish the correct
spelling of a name in latin you must look for the first (or eldest)
ocurrences of that name. If the name - my guess would go to
Ildephonsus or something like - did not occur in ancient Rome there is
not such a thing as 'the latin form' but several divergent forms as
latin suffered evolutions to the romance languages - italian, french,
spanish, portuguese, roumanian and others less signifiant - with
nuances over the time, nuances in different dialects, etc..
As expected, one of the first evolutions to the final languages was
exactly in names and in Portugal we can find in the same years and in
very different spellings the forms 'Ildefonso', 'Alphonso' or
Affonso'.
Your links are to Navarra, La Rioja - both with dialects wich, at the
time, were different from Castilian - Italy and Portugal and if you
would just have payed any attention to the portuguese link you would
have noticed the forms 'Ildefonsus' and 'Anfunsus' wich invalidate
your first assertion.
In England, where the name did not exist or was a rarity it was
expected that the scribes would try to write it as it sounded and
again with different results if it was spoken by a french a castilian
or other.
A "correct" English vernacular would be an unespected surprise, ...
but maybe not an unexpected thesis for a trained historian.

Best regards,
Francisco

Gjest

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 nov 2007 01:56:02

On Nov 29, 3:30 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso in Latin
charters:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... =%22ego+...


I have to think this one says more about the scribe - so much for
consistency: Alfonso, Aldefonso, Aldefonsi, Aldefonsus.

The document in question is basically written in Splatin.


So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name.

Perhaps *a* Latin form, but this brings us to another question. If
you find an odd variant spelling in modern English, you are willing to
dismiss it as anachronistic inconsistency, and something needing
correction. If you find an odd variant spelling in a Latin document,
you adopt it as *the* Latin spelling. Bit of a double standard,
methinks.

taf

David

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av David » 30 nov 2007 02:01:02

On Nov 29, 5:30 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
of the middle ages).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso in Latin
charters:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... =%22ego+...

http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... so%22&q=...

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Well, the forms you give show Alfonso, not Alphonso (because you could
not find any examples with "ego Alphonso). But you need to understand
that not all texts written in Latin are *good* Latin; not all are 100%
Latin; and with respect to names especially, there is a good deal of
variation both in forms and in what degree of Latinization is
acceptable or required. The above are examples of vernacular names
inserted into a (partly) Latin text, not Latin forms of names. When
Latinized, Alphonso/Alfonso (and also Affonso and Alonso) appear
variously as Alfonsus, Alphonsus, Adefonsus, Aldefonsus, Ildefonsus,
depending upon the period, the nation, and the idiosyncrasies of the
scribe. Forms with -o instead of -us reflect the vernacular, not the
Latin, and saying that Alphonso is "the Latin form" is definitely
incorrect.

The text with "ego Alfonso Sanchez" is dog Latin of the most canine
sort: written by someone who did not know classical or even Church
Latin very well at all, but who did know how to superficially Latinize
(in spelling at least) a text which I take to be at base Spanish.
Even so, it still uses "Aldefonsus" as its normal spelling. The
context of the snippeted texts obviously cannot be judged as easily,
but some of the citations definitely appear to be faulty (i.e., they
don't actually manifest examples of "ego Alfonso".)

Douglas Richardson

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 nov 2007 02:09:02

Dear Newsgroup ~

Here is another reference to Alphonse, the son of King Edward I of
England, this time in the English tongue.

It comes from a tract entitled "A declaration of the trew and dewe
title of Henrie VIII," and was written during the reign of that king.
It reads as follows:

"... And the same King Edward [I] and Quene Alianore had issew
together the said King Edward [II] of Carnarvan, besides III elder
sones which died enfantes whois names were Henry, John and Alphonse.
They had issue also V doughtres."). [Reference: Taylor, Debating the
Hundred Years War (Camden 5th ser. 29) (2006): 221].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 nov 2007 02:15:03

On Nov 29, 5:08 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Here is another reference to Alphonse, the son of King Edward I of
England, this time in the English tongue.

It comes from a tract entitled "A declaration of the trew and dewe
title of Henrie VIII," and was written during the reign of that king.
It reads as follows:

"... And the same King Edward [I] and Quene Alianore had issew
together the said King Edward [II] of Carnarvan, besides III elder
sones which died enfantes whois names were Henry, John and Alphonse.
They had issue also V doughtres."). [Reference: Taylor, Debating the
Hundred Years War (Camden 5th ser. 29) (2006): 221].

Valuable document, clarifying not only the correct spelling of
Alphonse, but also of Alianore, issew, enfantes, sones and doughtres.
In the future anyone using these words should take care to use the
right spelling, as this document reveals.

Alan Crozier

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Alan Crozier » 30 nov 2007 08:14:05

"Francisco Tavares de Almeida" <francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:d1934612-86ca-4b9a-ab51-7c727b5e92e4@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On 29 Nov, 23:30, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect
it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
of the middle ages).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso in Latin
charters:


http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... =%22ego+...


http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... so%22&q=...


http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... so%22&q=...


http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... so%22&q=...

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


I do not know latin but you are overlooking some basic facts. Latin
was spoken in ancient Rome and if you want to establish the correct
spelling of a name in latin you must look for the first (or eldest)
ocurrences of that name. If the name - my guess would go to
Ildephonsus or something like - did not occur in ancient Rome there is
not such a thing as 'the latin form' but several divergent forms as
latin suffered evolutions to the romance languages - italian, french,
spanish, portuguese, roumanian and others less signifiant - with
nuances over the time, nuances in different dialects, etc..
As expected, one of the first evolutions to the final languages was
exactly in names and in Portugal we can find in the same years and in
very different spellings the forms 'Ildefonso', 'Alphonso' or
Affonso'.

Have two different Gothic names, Alfonso and Ildefonso, become conflated
in Spain? Both have the element _funs_ meaning 'eager', but the first
part of Alfonso must be either _al_ 'all' or _athal_ 'noble' while
Ildefonso must come from _hildi_ 'battle'.

Your links are to Navarra, La Rioja - both with dialects wich, at the
time, were different from Castilian - Italy and Portugal and if you
would just have payed any attention to the portuguese link you would
have noticed the forms 'Ildefonsus' and 'Anfunsus' wich invalidate
your first assertion.
In England, where the name did not exist or was a rarity it was
expected that the scribes would try to write it as it sounded and
again with different results if it was spoken by a french a castilian
or other.
A "correct" English vernacular would be an unespected surprise, ...
but maybe not an unexpected thesis for a trained historian.

Best regards,
Francisco

Alan

Francisco Tavares de Alme

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Francisco Tavares de Alme » 30 nov 2007 10:25:07

On 30 Nov, 08:14, "Alan Crozier" <name1.na...@telia.com> wrote:

<< Have two different Gothic names, Alfonso and Ildefonso, become
conflated in Spain? Both have the element _funs_ meaning 'eager', but
the first part of Alfonso must be either _al_ 'all' or _athal_ 'noble'
while Ildefonso must come from _hildi_ 'battle'. >>

Alan

My goal was only to show Richardson's foolishness. I can not answer
your question without consulting a good etymological diccionary but
instances of portuguese kings 'Afonso' as 'Ildefonsus' in charters and
chronicles are quite common:
"Ego Rex Ildefonsus Henrici Comitis filius ..."
"... rex ildefonsus qui in sede et in regno patris sui successit
predictum consulem multum dilexit, et quicquid pater suus sibi dederat
ualde ..."
"Ego Rex Ildefonsus... una cum uxore mea ..."
All these found in the 1st page of results for a search in
Richardson's link.

Best regards,
Francisco

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Latin Form Alphonso Versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 nov 2007 11:28:00

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:c7fe1e6a-4ec7-414b-ba40-8f41e0dc6f11@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 29, 2:35 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

Let me get this clear. The 'correct' English vernacular name form is
demonstrated by a document written in French making reference to a
Castillian king?

taf

Dear Todd ~

French (or what is called Anglo-Norman French) was the day-to-day
language of the English court and the English barons down to the reign
of King Richard II.

These were French speaking people. Latin was their second tongue.

King Henry IV who came to power in 1399 was the first monarch in 300
years who spoke English. He was equally fluent in French I might add.

Actually, his son, Henry V, who succeeded his father in 1413, was the first
Post-Conquest English monarch to be truly proficient in the reading, writing
and speaking of English.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Thus, French would be considered the vernacular language of high born
English people before 1400, not English.

If you need to look up the definition of vernacular, I suggest you go
to the following weblink:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vernacular

I trust that answers your question.

Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 nov 2007 12:20:06

On Nov 29, 3:11 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:35 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

Let me get this clear. The 'correct' English vernacular name form is
demonstrated by a document written in French making reference to a
Castillian king?

taf

Dear Todd ~

French (or what is called Anglo-Norman French) was the day-to-day
language of the English court and the English barons down to the reign
of King Richard II.

These were French speaking people. Latin was their second tongue.

King Henry IV who came to power in 1399 was the first monarch in 300
years who spoke English. He was equally fluent in French I might add.

Thus, French would be considered the vernacular language of high born
English people before 1400, not English.

If you need to look up the definition of vernacular, I suggest you go
to the following weblink:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vernacular

Here are some for you:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pontificate
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/blowhard

I trust that answers your question.

No, it only shows how your rules of consistency shift with your whim.
Here you are implying that the "Anglo-Norman French" form of a name is
the appropriate one, yet in other cases it is the modern English form
that you select. We don't see you referring to Henri, do we? Or
Maheu, which appears in the same document.

Worse yet, when it comes down to it you are arguing that this
reference supplies the appropriate vernacular, yet the form shown is
Auffon. It takes some contorted logic to conclude that the vernacular
is the appropriate form and this vernacular document uses the form
Auffon, so the appropriate form is Alphonse.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Latin Form Alphonso Versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 nov 2007 14:12:06

A much more influential factor in the decline of the name Alphonse in the
United States was Frederick Burr Opper's famous comic strip, which ran in
William Randolph Hearst's newspapers and became an American cultural icon.

For details see:

<http://www.toonopedia.com/alphgast.htm>

There we have Alphonse & Gaston ---- creating an air of foppishness.

As we note, Nat Taylor, the Harvard donlet, had never even heard of the
Dumas fils play and the character of the "pimp".

But I'll bet he's heard of the "After you Alphonse -- No, after you, Gaston"
riff.

Even so, in Spain we have Alfonso XIII, born 1886 and Alfonso, the Crown
Prince, Juan Carlos's younger brother, born 1941.

So the Spanish Royals obviously do NOT see the name as synonymous with
"pimp".

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

I can imagine that the various forms of the name underwent a decline
in frequency when it became synonymous with "pimp" in many languages.
Blame that on the play "Monsieur Alphonse" (1873) by Alexandre Dumas
fils.

Tish

Hovite

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Hovite » 30 nov 2007 17:14:02

On Nov 29, 11:30 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

The modern English forms of names are often taken from the Latin. For
example, Henry is from Henricus. The older English form is Harry.

The is a long article about this in The Complete Peerage, 2nd edition,
Volume 3, Appendix C, pages 597 to 630, "Some Observations on
Mediaeval Names":

"Henry and Peter were uncommon in the Middle Ages, Harry and Piers
being the usual forms" (page 598)

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Latin form Alphonso [sic]

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 30 nov 2007 17:49:02

In article <1LO3j.1043$R_4.666@newsb.telia.net>,
"Alan Crozier" <name1.name2@telia.com> wrote:

Have two different Gothic names, Alfonso and Ildefonso, become conflated
in Spain? Both have the element _funs_ meaning 'eager', but the first
part of Alfonso must be either _al_ 'all' or _athal_ 'noble' while
Ildefonso must come from _hildi_ 'battle'.

This is interesting. I have the impression that the compressed form of
the first element, "Al-" only enters written usage (as a declined form,
'Alfonsus') around the 12th century, when the vernacular had come to
influence formal Castilian legal writing in many ways (we see so many
undeclined vernacular name forms in charters from the early 12th
onward). The earlier, normative Latin forms--most frequent in the 8th
to 12 centuries--were usually "Ildefonsus" and less commonly
"Adefonsus", the latter of which may have been influenced by vernacular
forms.

Because of this I'm not sure that this name derives from the Gothic
"Adal-" as the first name element (though it grew to resemble something
that looks like it would have originated this way), or that there were
two separate names that merged into one. I suspect all forms of it
ultimately derive from "[C]hildi-".

But this should be verified in Piel & Kremer's _Hispano-gotisches
Namenbuch_ (Heidelberg, 1976)--which I don't have to hand right now.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

David

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av David » 30 nov 2007 20:10:03

On Nov 30, 10:12 am, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:30 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

The modern English forms of names are often taken from the Latin. For
example, Henry is from Henricus. The older English form is Harry.

That's not exactly true. Although "Harry" was a popular form,
"Henry" is older, and is taken not immediately from Latin, but rather
directly from French, where the spellings "Henri" and "Henry" used to
be interchangeable.
The name is German in origin, Heinrich or Heimrich, meaning "ruler
of the home" (or dwelling), and its most notable early usage is in the
name of the German king, Henry the Fowler (876-936), several of whose
descendants bore the name. It did not become international, however,
until the time of the sainted Emperor Henry II (973-1024). The first
king outside Germany to bear the name was Henry I of France
(1008-1060). Henry of France's sister's grandson, a son of William the
Conqueror, was given the name Henry; he became Henry I (1069-1135) and
so the name came to be used in England; it spread to other countries
in Western Europe later.
The Latinization _Henricus_ is based on the German form of the
name, and is slightly archaic in the form of its termination,
reflecting such known equations as Dietrich > Theudericus, and
likewise followed in Friedrich > Fridericus. In Northern French the
final consonant was soon lost, and a form ending in a vowel was the
one that also became common in England. Elsewhere in Western Europe
the consonant was preserved, and we find forms like Henrik, Enrico,
(H)Enrique, and so on. The -nr- sequence caused much trouble in
pronunciation and was in some places augmented by the addition of a -
d- between the two sounds (e.g. Dutch "Hendrik") or simplified by
assimilating the first to the second sound, as in Italian Errico,
Errigo, Arrigo, and English Harry.

Francisco Tavares de Alme

Re: Latin form Alphonso [sic]

Legg inn av Francisco Tavares de Alme » 30 nov 2007 20:34:02

On 30 Nov, 17:49, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In article <1LO3j.1043$R_4....@newsb.telia.net>,
"Alan Crozier" <name1.na...@telia.com> wrote:

Have two different Gothic names, Alfonso and Ildefonso, become conflated
in Spain? Both have the element _funs_ meaning 'eager', but the first
part of Alfonso must be either _al_ 'all' or _athal_ 'noble' while
Ildefonso must come from _hildi_ 'battle'.

This is interesting. I have the impression that the compressed form of
the first element, "Al-" only enters written usage (as a declined form,
'Alfonsus') around the 12th century, when the vernacular had come to
influence formal Castilian legal writing in many ways (we see so many
undeclined vernacular name forms in charters from the early 12th
onward). The earlier, normative Latin forms--most frequent in the 8th
to 12 centuries--were usually "Ildefonsus" and less commonly
"Adefonsus", the latter of which may have been influenced by vernacular
forms.

Because of this I'm not sure that this name derives from the Gothic
"Adal-" as the first name element (though it grew to resemble something
that looks like it would have originated this way), or that there were
two separate names that merged into one. I suspect all forms of it
ultimately derive from "[C]hildi-".

But this should be verified in Piel & Kremer's _Hispano-gotisches
Namenbuch_ (Heidelberg, 1976)--which I don't have to hand right now.

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Not from Piel & Kremer but from José Pedro Machado's _Dicionário
Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa_ Alan Crozier was both
right and slightly wrong. The two names - in portuguese Afonso and
Ildefonso - are different and the origin is exactly the stated gothic.
But Ildefonso's origins traceable in Portugal are from St. Ildefonsus
(VII century) and Afonso originated from the old form 'Adefonso' found
in documents between 867-912 as Adefonsi. The gothic
'athal'>'adal' (nowadays 'edel') left perfect traces in the forms
'Adelffonsus' in a document of 915 and Adelphonsi in 1050.
As I said, different spellings could be found like 'Adfonsus'
'Anfunsus' but also 'Aldefonsus' and 'Ildefonsus'. The first ocurrence
of the modern spanish 'Alfonso' - presumably A(de)lfonso - is from 875
and last used in Portugal in 1256 (will of Mahaud of Savoy) while the
modern portuguese Afonso is first found in 1024.
So I would say that the names did not become conflated but what become
sometimes conflated was the spelling in what somebody aptly called dog
latin.

Best regards,
Francisco

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Latin form Alphonso [sic]

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 30 nov 2007 20:50:48

In article
<aae429d8-224b-496f-9a90-ca28a506234e@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida <francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com>
wrote:

Not from Piel & Kremer but from José Pedro Machado's Dicionário
Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa Alan Crozier was both
right and slightly wrong. The two names - in portuguese Afonso and
Ildefonso - are different and the origin is exactly the stated gothic.
But Ildefonso's origins traceable in Portugal are from St. Ildefonsus
(VII century) and Afonso originated from the old form 'Adefonso' found
in documents between 867-912 as Adefonsi. The gothic
'athal'>'adal' (nowadays 'edel') left perfect traces in the forms
'Adelffonsus' in a document of 915 and Adelphonsi in 1050.
As I said, different spellings could be found like 'Adfonsus'
'Anfunsus' but also 'Aldefonsus' and 'Ildefonsus'. The first ocurrence
of the modern spanish 'Alfonso' - presumably A(de)lfonso - is from 875
and last used in Portugal in 1256 (will of Mahaud of Savoy) while the
modern portuguese Afonso is first found in 1024.
So I would say that the names did not become conflated but what become
sometimes conflated was the spelling in what somebody aptly called dog
latin.

This is interesting to me. I always assume that the forms 'Adefonsus'
and 'Ildefonsus' found in documents from the 9th & 10th centuries are
interchangeably used for the same people. I would like to see examples
where this can be showed to refer to distinct names. Does this
onomastic dictionary address that at all?

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 30 nov 2007 22:12:02

On 30 nov, 00:11, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:35 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

Let me get this clear. The 'correct' English vernacular name form is
demonstrated by a document written in French making reference to a
Castillian king?

taf

Dear Todd ~

French (or what is called Anglo-Norman French) was the day-to-day
language of the English court and the English barons down to the reign
of King Richard II.

These were French speaking people. Latin was their second tongue.

King Henry IV who came to power in 1399 was the first monarch in 300
years who spoke English. He was equally fluent in French I might add.

Thus, French would be considered the vernacular language of high born
English people before 1400, not English.

If you need to look up the definition of vernacular, I suggest you go
to the following weblink:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vernacular

I trust that answers your question.

It obviously does not. His question was: "The 'correct' English
vernacular name form is demonstrated by a document written in French
making reference to a Castillian king?". That French was or not the
"vernacular language of high born English people" (whatever it is
supposed to mean) has patently nothing to do with what is the English
vernacular form of a name.

Or is Richardson trying to say that Guillaume is the English
vernacular form of the name of the first Norman King of England?

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 30 nov 2007 22:20:07

On 29 nov, 23:22, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

<...>

Curiously, while English and Americans trip over the Latin form,
Alphonso,

Alphonso is not a Latin form. Alphonsus would be.

it seems that the French historians and genealogists do
not. They regularly refer to King Louis VIII's son as Alphonse (or
Alfonse) de Poitiers, not as Alphonso. Ditto Alphonse de Brienne,
Count of Eu, uncle of Sir Henry de Beaumont (died 1340), 1st Lord
Beaumont in England.

Of course, because Alphonse is the French modern form for that name,
that's all. Although relatively rare today, Alphonse is not perceived
as a foreign name. It was even relatively common durint he 19th
century, and is for example the first name of some famous French
writters of that time, like Alphonse de Lamartine or Alphonse Daudet.

Pierre

Mcs

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Mcs » 30 nov 2007 22:27:35

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com a écrit :
Curiously, while English and Americans trip over the Latin form,
Alphonso,
Alphonso is not a Latin form. Alphonsus would be.

it seems that the French historians and genealogists do
not. They regularly refer to King Louis VIII's son as Alphonse (or
Alfonse) de Poitiers, not as Alphonso. ...
Of course, ...
Quelques exemples:

Alfonsus, filius regis Francie, comes pictavensis et tholose, ...
(28 avril 1267)
Aufunz, fiuz de roi de france, coens de Poitiers et de Tholose,
a son amé et son feal, au seneschau de Poitou, saluz et amour.
(9 mai 1267)
Alfonsus, ... , dilectis et fidelibus suis Sycardo Alemanni et
R. de Duroforti, salutem et sinceram dilectionem
(20 juin 1252)

... because Alphonse is the French modern form for that name,
that's all. Although relatively rare today, Alphonse is not perceived
as a foreign name. It was even relatively common durint he 19th
century, and is for example the first name of some famous French
writters of that time, like Alphonse de Lamartine or Alphonse Daudet.

Pierre


Cordialement,

--
|Claude Safon, Amateur d'Histoire et de Généalogie(mcsmntpl@wanadoo.fr)|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 30 nov 2007 22:30:04

On 30 nov, 00:30, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
of the middle ages).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso

But you were speaking of "Alphonso", not "Alfonso".

in Latin
charters:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... =%22ego+...

http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... so%22&q=...

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

So probably are Aphonsi, Alphonsos, Alphonsibus are "Latin form of the
name" in Richardson's world??????

Of course, when one speaks of the Latin form of a name, he speaks of
the nominative form. If he knows something about Latin language of
course. But DR has already demonstrated in the past that Latin was not
his forte. No more than French is.

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 30 nov 2007 22:31:02

On 30 nov, 22:27, Mcs <mcsmn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
pierre_aro...@hotmail.com a écrit :>> Curiously, while English and Americans trip over the Latin form,
Alphonso,
Alphonso is not a Latin form. Alphonsus would be.

it seems that the French historians and genealogists do
not. They regularly refer to King Louis VIII's son as Alphonse (or
Alfonse) de Poitiers, not as Alphonso. ...
Of course, ...

Quelques exemples:

Qui sont supposés démontrer quoi?

Pierre

Mcs

Re: Latin form Alphonso [sic]

Legg inn av Mcs » 30 nov 2007 22:34:36

Nathaniel Taylor a écrit :
In article
aae429d8-224b-496f-9a90-ca28a506234e@e6 ... groups.com>,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida <francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com
wrote:

Not from Piel & Kremer but from José Pedro Machado's Dicionário
Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa Alan Crozier was both
right and slightly wrong. The two names - in portuguese Afonso and
Ildefonso - are different and the origin is exactly the stated gothic.
But Ildefonso's origins traceable in Portugal are from St. Ildefonsus
(VII century) and Afonso originated from the old form 'Adefonso' found
in documents between 867-912 as Adefonsi. The gothic
'athal'>'adal' (nowadays 'edel') left perfect traces in the forms
'Adelffonsus' in a document of 915 and Adelphonsi in 1050.
As I said, different spellings could be found like 'Adfonsus'
'Anfunsus' but also 'Aldefonsus' and 'Ildefonsus'. The first ocurrence
of the modern spanish 'Alfonso' - presumably A(de)lfonso - is from 875
and last used in Portugal in 1256 (will of Mahaud of Savoy) while the
modern portuguese Afonso is first found in 1024.
So I would say that the names did not become conflated but what become
sometimes conflated was the spelling in what somebody aptly called dog
latin.

This is interesting to me. I always assume that the forms 'Adefonsus'
and 'Ildefonsus' found in documents from the 9th & 10th centuries are
interchangeably used for the same people. ...
In France,

Adalfons (adal = noble + funs = rapide, impatient).
Hildefuns (hilde = combat + funs = rapide) "prêt ou rapide au combat"
(peut-être enclain à ce battre facilement)

Cordialement,
--
|Claude Safon, Amateur d'Histoire et de Généalogie(mcsmntpl@wanadoo.fr)|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Latin Form Alphonso Versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 nov 2007 22:40:38

"Who's on first?"

DSH

"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:7f10953b-eb0e-4d3f-968d-

420c0816b19f@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...

I trust that answers your question.

It obviously does not. His question was: "The 'correct' English
vernacular name form is demonstrated by a document written in French
making reference to a Castillian king?". That French was or not the
"vernacular language of high born English people" (whatever it is
supposed to mean) has patently nothing to do with what is the English
vernacular form of a name.

Or is Richardson trying to say that Guillaume is the English
vernacular form of the name of the first Norman King of England?

Pierre

Mcs

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Mcs » 30 nov 2007 22:45:04

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com a écrit :
On 30 nov, 22:27, Mcs <mcsmn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
pierre_aro...@hotmail.com a écrit :>> Curiously, while English and Americans trip over the Latin form,
Alphonso,
Alphonso is not a Latin form. Alphonsus would be.
it seems that the French historians and genealogists do
not. They regularly refer to King Louis VIII's son as Alphonse (or
Alfonse) de Poitiers, not as Alphonso. ...
Of course, ...
Quelques exemples:

Qui sont supposés démontrer quoi?
- Que la rigueur voudrait que pour cette époque on parle bien de

alfonsus et non alphonsus.
- que ce sont des formes facilement transformées (peu stables) et à
peine "analogues" d'un language à l'autre, bref dépendant plus d'une
habitude (personnelle ?) que d'une "grammaire".
- ... et tout ce que votre sagacité voudra en tirer ...

Cordialement,
--
|Claude Safon, Amateur d'Histoire et de Généalogie(mcsmntpl@wanadoo.fr)|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Latin form Alphonso [sic]

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 30 nov 2007 22:55:26

In article <47508191$0$25912$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
Mcs <mcsmntpl@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor a écrit :
In article
aae429d8-224b-496f-9a90-ca28a506234e@e6 ... groups.com>,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida <francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com
wrote:

Not from Piel & Kremer but from José Pedro Machado's Dicionário
Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa Alan Crozier was both
right and slightly wrong. The two names - in portuguese Afonso and
Ildefonso - are different and the origin is exactly the stated gothic.
But Ildefonso's origins traceable in Portugal are from St. Ildefonsus
(VII century) and Afonso originated from the old form 'Adefonso' found
in documents between 867-912 as Adefonsi. The gothic
'athal'>'adal' (nowadays 'edel') left perfect traces in the forms
'Adelffonsus' in a document of 915 and Adelphonsi in 1050.
As I said, different spellings could be found like 'Adfonsus'
'Anfunsus' but also 'Aldefonsus' and 'Ildefonsus'. The first ocurrence
of the modern spanish 'Alfonso' - presumably A(de)lfonso - is from 875
and last used in Portugal in 1256 (will of Mahaud of Savoy) while the
modern portuguese Afonso is first found in 1024.
So I would say that the names did not become conflated but what become
sometimes conflated was the spelling in what somebody aptly called dog
latin.

This is interesting to me. I always assume that the forms 'Adefonsus'
and 'Ildefonsus' found in documents from the 9th & 10th centuries are
interchangeably used for the same people. ...

In France,
Adalfons (adal = noble + funs = rapide, impatient).
Hildefuns (hilde = combat + funs = rapide) "prêt ou rapide au combat"
(peut-être enclain à ce battre facilement)

Yes, these are the two supposedly distinct derivations of the name. But
it is difficult, when the same person is referred to both as 'Adefonsus'
and 'Ildefonsus' in medieval charters, to know which of these roots was
actually inherited as the given name of the subject. Can the two names
be shown to have been in use together, by the Carolingian period? And
are surviving Visigothic charters sufficient to show that there were be
two distinct names in use then? I am not certain of this.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

John Briggs

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av John Briggs » 30 nov 2007 23:03:50

Hovite wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:30 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

The modern English forms of names are often taken from the Latin. For
example, Henry is from Henricus. The older English form is Harry.

So what do you make of Hal and Hallet? (Harriot and Harriet became feminine
at some point.)
--
John Briggs

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 30 nov 2007 23:05:06

On 30 nov, 22:45, Mcs <mcsmn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
pierre_aro...@hotmail.com a écrit :> On 30 nov, 22:27, Mcs <mcsmn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
pierre_aro...@hotmail.com a écrit :>> Curiously, while English and Americans trip over the Latin form,
Alphonso,
Alphonso is not a Latin form. Alphonsus would be.
it seems that the French historians and genealogists do
not. They regularly refer to King Louis VIII's son as Alphonse (or
Alfonse) de Poitiers, not as Alphonso. ...
Of course, ...
Quelques exemples:

Qui sont supposés démontrer quoi?

- Que la rigueur voudrait que pour cette époque on parle bien de
alfonsus et non alphonsus.
- que ce sont des formes facilement transformées (peu stables) et à
peine "analogues" d'un language à l'autre, bref dépendant plus d'une
habitude (personnelle ?) que d'une "grammaire".
- ... et tout ce que votre sagacité voudra en tirer ...

Certes, mais ma sagacité est frappé par une certaine perplexité quand
il s'agit de saisir le rapport entre ces remarques finalement
formulées et l'échange en cours auquel elles viennent se greffer: qui
a nié que les formes sont instables à cette époque? qui a prétendu
qu'Alphonsus serait une forme plus courant qu'Alfonsus (ou l'inverse
d'ailleurs)?

Faites donc comme si je n'étais pas sagace et formulez-nous donc un
peu plus précisément ce que vous avez en tête. Cela rend en général
les échanges plus intéressants que quelques références laconiquement
balancées au milieu d'une discussion.

Sagacement vôtre,

Pierre

nycram

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av nycram » 01 des 2007 01:00:05

On Nov 30, 4:25 pm, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"
<pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 30 nov, 00:30, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
of the middle ages).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso

But you were speaking of "Alphonso", not "Alfonso".

in Latin
charters:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... =%22ego+...

http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... so%22&q=...

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

So probably are Aphonsi, Alphonsos, Alphonsibus are "Latin form of the
name" in Richardson's world??????

Of course, when one speaks of the Latin form of a name, he speaks of
the nominative form. If he knows something about Latin language of
course. But DR has already demonstrated in the past that Latin was not
his forte. No more than French is.

Pierre

In fact, the Latin form of the name is Ildefonsus, a Latinization of
the Visigothic Hildefuns.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ildephonsus_of_Toledo

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Latin form Alphonso [sic]

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 01 des 2007 02:58:11

In article
<nltaylor-956FB3.14504830112007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote:

In article
aae429d8-224b-496f-9a90-ca28a506234e@e6 ... groups.com>,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida <francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com
wrote:

. . . The gothic
'athal'>'adal' (nowadays 'edel') left perfect traces in the forms
'Adelffonsus' in a document of 915 and Adelphonsi in 1050.
As I said, different spellings could be found like 'Adfonsus'
'Anfunsus' but also 'Aldefonsus' and 'Ildefonsus'. The first ocurrence
of the modern spanish 'Alfonso' - presumably A(de)lfonso - is from 875
and last used in Portugal in 1256 (will of Mahaud of Savoy) while the
modern portuguese Afonso is first found in 1024.
So I would say that the names did not become conflated but what become
sometimes conflated was the spelling in what somebody aptly called dog
latin.

This is interesting to me. I always assume that the forms 'Adefonsus'
and 'Ildefonsus' found in documents from the 9th & 10th centuries are
interchangeably used for the same people. I would like to see examples
where this can be showed to refer to distinct names. Does this
onomastic dictionary address that at all?

In thinking further about this, I would like to be certain that the two
isolated instances of an apparently clear form 'Adalfonsus' (given here
as from 915 and 1050) are not themselves aberrations. Generally in this
period I find few such forms compared with an abundance of the type
'Ildefonsus' (though it would be nice if someone could check the indexes
of the published document collection of the cathedral of Leon, which I
don't have in my study--I have mostly Aragonese & Catalonian charters at
home). I would still need to be persuaded that distinct names were in
use here simultaneously.

This reminds me of the discussion about whether 'Godefridus' and
'Gozfridus' were understood to be distinct in the 11th-12th c in the Low
Countries and England, and whether they had evolved from the same roots
(a discussion around the allegation of the English marriage and
offspring of 'Godefroy' de Bouillon).

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 01 des 2007 10:23:04

On 1 déc, 00:59, nycram <gvellen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 30, 4:25 pm, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"





pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 30 nov, 00:30, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
of the middle ages).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso

But you were speaking of "Alphonso", not "Alfonso".

in Latin
charters:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... =%22ego+...

http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... so%22&q=...

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

So probably are Aphonsi, Alphonsos, Alphonsibus are "Latin form of the
name" in Richardson's world??????

Of course, when one speaks of the Latin form of a name, he speaks of
the nominative form. If he knows something about Latin language of
course. But DR has already demonstrated in the past that Latin was not
his forte. No more than French is.

Pierre

In fact, the Latin form of the name is Ildefonsus, a Latinization of
the Visigothic Hildefuns.

That was not my point at all. I was not going into a etymological
discussion about what is the "correct" Latin form of the name,
Alphonsus, Ildefonsus, or Brandonus. I was making a grammatical point:
"Alphonso" is not a "Latin form of the name" simply because Alphonso
is not nominative, so it is absurd to pretend that the English form
"Alphonso" is just the Latin form used in English.

Douglas Richardson's first problem is not with etymology but with
Latin.

Pierre

Francisco Tavares de Alme

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Francisco Tavares de Alme » 01 des 2007 13:55:03

On 1 Dez, 00:59, nycram <gvellen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 30, 4:25 pm, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"



pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 30 nov, 00:30, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
of the middle ages).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso

But you were speaking of "Alphonso", not "Alfonso".

in Latin
charters:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... =%22ego+...

http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... so%22&q=...

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

So probably are Aphonsi, Alphonsos, Alphonsibus are "Latin form of the
name" in Richardson's world??????

Of course, when one speaks of the Latin form of a name, he speaks of
the nominative form. If he knows something about Latin language of
course. But DR has already demonstrated in the past that Latin was not
his forte. No more than French is.

Pierre

In fact, the Latin form of the name is Ildefonsus, a Latinization of
the Visigothic Hildefuns.

See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ildephonsus_of_Toledo

Wikipedia <<and his Gothic name was Hildefuns, which evolved into the
Castilian name Alfonso>> is plain wrong. Castilian Alfonso came from
Athal-funs not from Hild(i)-funs.

David

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av David » 01 des 2007 14:15:04

On Dec 1, 6:50 am, Francisco Tavares de Almeida
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Dez, 00:59, nycram <gvellen...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Nov 30, 4:25 pm, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 30 nov, 00:30, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
of the middle ages).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso

But you were speaking of "Alphonso", not "Alfonso".

in Latin
charters:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... =%22ego+...

http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... so%22&q=...

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

So probably are Aphonsi, Alphonsos, Alphonsibus are "Latin form of the
name" in Richardson's world??????

Of course, when one speaks of the Latin form of a name, he speaks of
the nominative form. If he knows something about Latin language of
course. But DR has already demonstrated in the past that Latin was not
his forte. No more than French is.

Pierre

In fact, the Latin form of the name is Ildefonsus, a Latinization of
the Visigothic Hildefuns.

See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ildephonsus_of_Toledo

Wikipedia <<and his Gothic name was Hildefuns, which evolved into the
Castilian name Alfonso>> is plain wrong. Castilian Alfonso came from
Athal-funs not from Hild(i)-funs.

Nonetheless, Ildefonsus *is* attested as an Latinization of Alfonso,
and it's quite possible that Alfonso is the product of the convergence
of a number of originally different names, including both *Hildifuns
and *Athalafuns.

Francisco Tavares de Alme

Re: Latin form Alphonso [sic]

Legg inn av Francisco Tavares de Alme » 01 des 2007 14:50:03

On 1 Dez, 02:58, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In article
nltaylor-956FB3.14504830112...@earthlin ... ernews.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:



In article
aae429d8-224b-496f-9a90-ca28a5062...@e6 ... groups.com>,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida <francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com
wrote:

. . . The gothic
'athal'>'adal' (nowadays 'edel') left perfect traces in the forms
'Adelffonsus' in a document of 915 and Adelphonsi in 1050.
As I said, different spellings could be found like 'Adfonsus'
'Anfunsus' but also 'Aldefonsus' and 'Ildefonsus'. The first ocurrence
of the modern spanish 'Alfonso' - presumably A(de)lfonso - is from 875
and last used in Portugal in 1256 (will of Mahaud of Savoy) while the
modern portuguese Afonso is first found in 1024.
So I would say that the names did not become conflated but what become
sometimes conflated was the spelling in what somebody aptly called dog
latin.

This is interesting to me. I always assume that the forms 'Adefonsus'
and 'Ildefonsus' found in documents from the 9th & 10th centuries are
interchangeably used for the same people. I would like to see examples
where this can be showed to refer to distinct names. Does this
onomastic dictionary address that at all?

In thinking further about this, I would like to be certain that the two
isolated instances of an apparently clear form 'Adalfonsus' (given here
as from 915 and 1050) are not themselves aberrations. Generally in this
period I find few such forms compared with an abundance of the type
'Ildefonsus' (though it would be nice if someone could check the indexes
of the published document collection of the cathedral of Leon, which I
don't have in my study--I have mostly Aragonese & Catalonian charters at
home). I would still need to be persuaded that distinct names were in
use here simultaneously.

This reminds me of the discussion about whether 'Godefridus' and
'Gozfridus' were understood to be distinct in the 11th-12th c in the Low
Countries and England, and whether they had evolved from the same roots
(a discussion around the allegation of the English marriage and
offspring of 'Godefroy' de Bouillon).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

The onomastic dictionary refers to existing documents but for the
conclusions expressed in the article I have to trust the author. He is
undisputable the best but the also first to admit a fair amount of
possible errors. As he identified the gothic origin and cited those
documents as corroborative he clearly did not considered them
aberrations.

Also as you know - and presumably Richardson doesn't - galician-
portuguese was one of the first languages in Iberia and well
differentiated from castilian or navarrese so I can not assume that
the portuguese reality is not different in Aragón. This said, the name
'Ildefonso' originated in Portugal from St. Ildefonso, Archbishop of
Toledo d. 667 and it is found in several places both in the form Santo
Ildefonso, or just Ildefonso, including some very old parishes. From
its toponymical use, it originated some family names (in small number)
but not a given name. Of course, in Spain, closer to Toledo's
influence, given name may occur; I do not know.
In Portugal and in these strict senses - hagiografical? and
toponymical? - the latin was always 'Ildefonsus'.

For the given name Afonso the reality is much different with all the
cited forms amongst them also 'Ildefonsus'. Considering that Toledo
was far away - and sometime a strong competitor with portuguese Braga
- I do not think that we can find in Portugal one single document
referring to both names, the given name and the hagiografical? name.

About different spellings, the 'spanish' frame is not different as can
be seen in Velde's heraldica.org about Alfonso XI <<his first name is
spelled many ways: Alfonsys, Ildefonsus, Alfosus, Illefosus, Alfonsus>>
For the question that aroused your curiosity - if I am not wrong - you
have an enlightening example in queen Berengaria's 'carta de
arras' (dowry of Castroverde) <<ego Adefonsus, Dei gratia rex Legionis
do in dotem uxore mee regine domne Berengaria, filie domni Aldefonsi>>.

Hope this helps.
Francisco

Gjest

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 des 2007 16:21:00

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 01:20:11 -0800 (PST), "pierre_aronax@hotmail.com"
<pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote:

On 1 déc, 00:59, nycram <gvellen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 30, 4:25 pm, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"





pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 30 nov, 00:30, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

'Alphonso' is not 'the Latin form' of this name (which usually
begins
with an entirely different letter), in medieval sources (I expect it
almost never appears in that form--with any case ending--in Latin
texts
of the middle ages).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Here are several instances of the form Alphonso/Alfonso

But you were speaking of "Alphonso", not "Alfonso".

in Latin
charters:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ercCAA ... =%22ego+...

http://books.google.com/books?id=0dEMAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=MWkqAA ... so%22&q=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf0kAA ... so%22&q=...

So, yes, the name Alphonso (or if you prefer Alphonsus) is the Latin
form of this name. Just as Henrico/Henricus are Latin forms of
Henry. And so forth.

So probably are Aphonsi, Alphonsos, Alphonsibus are "Latin form of the
name" in Richardson's world??????

Of course, when one speaks of the Latin form of a name, he speaks of
the nominative form. If he knows something about Latin language of
course. But DR has already demonstrated in the past that Latin was not
his forte. No more than French is.

Pierre

In fact, the Latin form of the name is Ildefonsus, a Latinization of
the Visigothic Hildefuns.

That was not my point at all. I was not going into a etymological
discussion about what is the "correct" Latin form of the name,
Alphonsus, Ildefonsus, or Brandonus. I was making a grammatical point:
"Alphonso" is not a "Latin form of the name" simply because Alphonso
is not nominative, so it is absurd to pretend that the English form
"Alphonso" is just the Latin form used in English.

Douglas Richardson's first problem is not with etymology but with
Latin.


Ultimately, the problem concerns just one word in Latin: ego.

Tish

Doug McDonald

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 01 des 2007 18:17:20

In medieval Latin, do male names have to be second declension
(nominative -us)?

Doug McDonald

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 01 des 2007 19:02:54

In article <fis59e$383$3@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

In medieval Latin, do male names have to be second declension
(nominative -us)?

Many names which have an 'o' in the last syllable are squished into the
3d declension with an 'n' stem. (These are not the 2d declension names
where the dative / ablative declension '-o' has ossified into vernacular
use--like our friend Alfonso--, but rather things like Bego, Drogo,
Hugo, Hatto, Odo, Salamo, Fredelo, etc.).

I'm thinking of masculine names declined any other way, but coming up
blank right now.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Latin form Alphonso [sic]

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 01 des 2007 19:44:58

In article
<458a0083-e3f8-4ca8-8f06-3e2c90176b55@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida <francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 1 Dez, 02:58, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In article
nltaylor-956FB3.14504830112...@earthlin ... ernews.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:



In article
aae429d8-224b-496f-9a90-ca28a5062...@e6 ... groups.com>,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida <francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com
wrote:

. . . The gothic
'athal'>'adal' (nowadays 'edel') left perfect traces in the forms
'Adelffonsus' in a document of 915 and Adelphonsi in 1050.
As I said, different spellings could be found like 'Adfonsus'
'Anfunsus' but also 'Aldefonsus' and 'Ildefonsus'. The first ocurrence
of the modern spanish 'Alfonso' - presumably A(de)lfonso - is from 875
and last used in Portugal in 1256 (will of Mahaud of Savoy) while the
modern portuguese Afonso is first found in 1024.
So I would say that the names did not become conflated but what become
sometimes conflated was the spelling in what somebody aptly called dog
latin.

This is interesting to me. I always assume that the forms 'Adefonsus'
and 'Ildefonsus' found in documents from the 9th & 10th centuries are
interchangeably used for the same people. I would like to see examples
where this can be showed to refer to distinct names. Does this
onomastic dictionary address that at all?

In thinking further about this, I would like to be certain that the two
isolated instances of an apparently clear form 'Adalfonsus' (given here
as from 915 and 1050) are not themselves aberrations. Generally in this
period I find few such forms compared with an abundance of the type
'Ildefonsus' (though it would be nice if someone could check the indexes
of the published document collection of the cathedral of Leon, which I
don't have in my study--I have mostly Aragonese & Catalonian charters at
home). I would still need to be persuaded that distinct names were in
use here simultaneously.

This reminds me of the discussion about whether 'Godefridus' and
'Gozfridus' were understood to be distinct in the 11th-12th c in the Low
Countries and England, and whether they had evolved from the same roots
(a discussion around the allegation of the English marriage and
offspring of 'Godefroy' de Bouillon).

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

The onomastic dictionary refers to existing documents but for the
conclusions expressed in the article I have to trust the author. He is
undisputable the best but the also first to admit a fair amount of
possible errors. As he identified the gothic origin and cited those
documents as corroborative he clearly did not considered them
aberrations.

Also as you know - and presumably Richardson doesn't - galician-
portuguese was one of the first languages in Iberia and well
differentiated from castilian or navarrese so I can not assume that
the portuguese reality is not different in Aragón. This said, the name
'Ildefonso' originated in Portugal from St. Ildefonso, Archbishop of
Toledo d. 667 and it is found in several places both in the form Santo
Ildefonso, or just Ildefonso, including some very old parishes. From
its toponymical use, it originated some family names (in small number)
but not a given name. Of course, in Spain, closer to Toledo's
influence, given name may occur; I do not know.
In Portugal and in these strict senses - hagiografical? and
toponymical? - the latin was always 'Ildefonsus'.

For the given name Afonso the reality is much different with all the
cited forms amongst them also 'Ildefonsus'. Considering that Toledo
was far away - and sometime a strong competitor with portuguese Braga
- I do not think that we can find in Portugal one single document
referring to both names, the given name and the hagiografical? name.

About different spellings, the 'spanish' frame is not different as can
be seen in Velde's heraldica.org about Alfonso XI <<his first name is
spelled many ways: Alfonsys, Ildefonsus, Alfosus, Illefosus, Alfonsus
For the question that aroused your curiosity - if I am not wrong - you
have an enlightening example in queen Berengaria's 'carta de
arras' (dowry of Castroverde) <<ego Adefonsus, Dei gratia rex Legionis
do in dotem uxore mee regine domne Berengaria, filie domni Aldefonsi>>.

Francisco, thank you for this further comment. My presumption of
interchangeability of Latinizations which appear as 'Adal-' and 'Ildi-'
has always been colored by my familiarity with charters from Aragon and
Catalonia. In an enormous recent edition of the acts of Alfonso II of
Aragon (1162-96), I see that in *original* acts he uses both Adefonsus
and Ildefonsus--far more frequently the latter.

But on the other hand, the name (or names) was/were uncommon in
Catalonia/Aragon in earlier centuries, so how scribes there Latinized it
might not truly reflect its etymology. For example, among the few
examples of this name I find in pre-1000 Catalonia is a charter of 920
in the Arxiu del Catedral de Barcelona (unfortunately only extant as a
copy in the Libri antiquitatum of around 1200), in which one 'Galindo,
gallicense' donates to the cathedral some landed property of his late
son, 'Adifons[us]'. This is the only example of the name in all the
earliest charters of Barcelona itself, and the name is associated with a
Galician. Other early renderings I find in Catalonia / Aragon,
scattered in original charters: 'Ildovuonsus' (929), 'Eldevolsus' [sic]
(934), 'Adevons[us] (996), Adefonsus (898), 'Advonsus' (1003).

I'd still like to see what a survey of the recently-published document
collection from a place like the cathedral of Leon, where the name was
certainly a local choice of long-standing, shows for Latinizations.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 01 des 2007 20:09:04

On 1 déc, 19:02, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In article <fis59e$38...@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

In medieval Latin, do male names have to be second declension
(nominative -us)?

Many names which have an 'o' in the last syllable are squished into the
3d declension with an 'n' stem. (These are not the 2d declension names
where the dative / ablative declension '-o' has ossified into vernacular
use--like our friend Alfonso--, but rather things like Bego, Drogo,
Hugo, Hatto, Odo, Salamo, Fredelo, etc.).

Or, more classical, Nero.

I'm thinking of masculine names declined any other way, but coming up
blank right now.

What about masculine names which are following the first declension,
classical like Agrippa -ae, or postclassical like Andreas -(a)e?

Pierre

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Latin form Alphonso versus Alphonse/Alfonse

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 01 des 2007 20:23:58

In article
<06a672fe-2846-4ada-823e-61683260c041@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote:

On 1 déc, 19:02, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In article <fis59e$38...@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

In medieval Latin, do male names have to be second declension
(nominative -us)?

Many names which have an 'o' in the last syllable are squished into the
3d declension with an 'n' stem. (These are not the 2d declension names
where the dative / ablative declension '-o' has ossified into vernacular
use--like our friend Alfonso--, but rather things like Bego, Drogo,
Hugo, Hatto, Odo, Salamo, Fredelo, etc.).

Or, more classical, Nero.


I'm thinking of masculine names declined any other way, but coming up
blank right now.

What about masculine names which are following the first declension,
classical like Agrippa -ae, or postclassical like Andreas -(a)e?

Yes! I was thinking of medieval names I regularly see: no Agrippas!
But Andreas certainly fits the bill.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»