Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Re: Meaning of Matertera: Fitz William, Gant, and Scrope fam

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 04 okt 2005 23:15:23

Dear Will ~

The confirmation charter which I cited for Countess Ida of Boulogne
dates sometime between the death of her father, Matthieu, Count of
Boulogne, which took place in 1173, and her own death which took place
in 1216.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/4/05 6:28:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

"The church of St. Nicholas of Droitwich was granted to the church of
Fontevrault by Matthew count of Boulogne. His daughter Ida, the
countess of Boulogne, confirmed the gift of the chapel together with
the land forming its endowment at the petition of M. abbess of
Fontevrault, whom the countess styles karissima matertera mia."

Can this incident be dated ?
Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of John Mure of Rowallan (was Diana's ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2005 23:32:02

In a message dated 10/3/05 8:43:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< No, the 1420 death date for Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany is
correct. The grandfather of Sir Walter Stewart, executed in 1425, was
his maternal grandfather, Duncan, Earl of Lennox (all part of the
retribution of James I against the family of his uncle, Duke Robert). >>

Thanks for that, I should have looked more closely.
I also have that one uncle James Stewart was supposed to have escaped and
died in 1451 in Ireland "On hearing of his father's imprisonment, came down from
the highlands with a considerable force, burnt down the town of Dunbarton,
and killed Sir John Stewart, governor of the castle, with many others, for which
he was obliged
to fly to Ireland where he died."

I wonder if this is accurate, or a myth spun to connect two unrelated
families.

Will Johnson

Gjest

re: Abbess of Fontevrault

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2005 02:49:02

Douglas Richardson has brought forward a curious document which appears (on
its face) to be telling us that some Matilda (said by him to be dau of Thierry,
Count of Flanders and [I assume] Sybil, Countess of Anjou) was Abbess of
Fontevrault sometime between 1172 and 1216.

I found a few sites which state that in 1174, Marie de Blois became this
Abbess, she was the widow of Eudes (Odo), Duke of Burgundy. He had died 27 Sep
1162. This Marie did not herself die until 7 Aug 1190.

We are told, that in 1190 Adelaide of Blois became Abbess of Fontevrault, she
was the dau of Theobald V, Count of Blois and Alix of France (dau of Louis
VII) and could not have been very old at this time. I do not have any death
date for this Adelaide.

If these things are true, then that more severly restricts the time period
that Douglas' document could have been drawn.

Will Johnson

Thierry Stasser

Re: Abbess of Fontevrault

Legg inn av Thierry Stasser » 05 okt 2005 20:52:37

Mathilda, second daughter of Thierry d'Alsace, count of Flanders, by his
second wife Sibylle of anjou, became a nun at Fontevrault shortly before
april 1157 . GISLEBERT de MONS: § 51, p 90-91 (ed. L VANDERKINDERE):
Theodoricus comes Flandriae de uxore sua Sibilia filios habuit et
filias...una eorum soli deo adherens et eum sibi sponsumeligens in
monasterio Fontis Evraldi religionis habitum assumpsit... See A VERHULST,
Note sur une charte de Thierry d'alsace comte de Flandre pour l'abbaye de
Fontevrault (21 avril 1157), in Etudes de civilisation mediévale. Mélanges
offerts à E R Labande, p 711-719. Mathilda became abbess in about 1189/1190,
after Marie of Champagne 'death, and died in 1194 (Gallia Christiana vol
II, col 1320).

dans l'article a3.7cc57133.30747cce@aol.com, WJhonson@aol.com à
WJhonson@aol.com a écrit le 5/10/05 2:48 :

Douglas Richardson has brought forward a curious document which appears (on
its face) to be telling us that some Matilda (said by him to be dau of
Thierry,
Count of Flanders and [I assume] Sybil, Countess of Anjou) was Abbess of
Fontevrault sometime between 1172 and 1216.

I found a few sites which state that in 1174, Marie de Blois became this
Abbess, she was the widow of Eudes (Odo), Duke of Burgundy. He had died 27
Sep
1162. This Marie did not herself die until 7 Aug 1190.

We are told, that in 1190 Adelaide of Blois became Abbess of Fontevrault, she
was the dau of Theobald V, Count of Blois and Alix of France (dau of Louis
VII) and could not have been very old at this time. I do not have any death
date for this Adelaide.

If these things are true, then that more severly restricts the time period
that Douglas' document could have been drawn.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Meaning of Matertera: Fitz William, Gant, and Scrope fam

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 okt 2005 22:25:41

Dear Will ~

Go to this link:

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... style=TEXT

Douglas Richardson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Abbess of Fontevrault

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 okt 2005 22:30:30

Dear Thierry ~

Thank you for your answer. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Thierry Stasser wrote:
Mathilda, second daughter of Thierry d'Alsace, count of Flanders, by his
second wife Sibylle of anjou, became a nun at Fontevrault shortly before
april 1157 . GISLEBERT de MONS: § 51, p 90-91 (ed. L VANDERKINDERE):
Theodoricus comes Flandriae de uxore sua Sibilia filios habuit et
filias...una eorum soli deo adherens et eum sibi sponsumeligens in
monasterio Fontis Evraldi religionis habitum assumpsit... See A VERHULST,
Note sur une charte de Thierry d'alsace comte de Flandre pour l'abbaye de
Fontevrault (21 avril 1157), in Etudes de civilisation mediévale. Mélanges
offerts à E R Labande, p 711-719. Mathilda became abbess in about 1189/1190,
after Marie of Champagne 'death, and died in 1194 (Gallia Christiana vol
II, col 1320).

dans l'article a3.7cc57133.30747cce@aol.com, WJhonson@aol.com à
WJhonson@aol.com a écrit le 5/10/05 2:48 :

Douglas Richardson has brought forward a curious document which appears (on
its face) to be telling us that some Matilda (said by him to be dau of
Thierry,
Count of Flanders and [I assume] Sybil, Countess of Anjou) was Abbess of
Fontevrault sometime between 1172 and 1216.

I found a few sites which state that in 1174, Marie de Blois became this
Abbess, she was the widow of Eudes (Odo), Duke of Burgundy. He had died 27
Sep
1162. This Marie did not herself die until 7 Aug 1190.

We are told, that in 1190 Adelaide of Blois became Abbess of Fontevrault, she
was the dau of Theobald V, Count of Blois and Alix of France (dau of Louis
VII) and could not have been very old at this time. I do not have any death
date for this Adelaide.

If these things are true, then that more severly restricts the time period
that Douglas' document could have been drawn.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Meaning of Matertera: Fitz William, Gant, and Scrope fam

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2005 23:10:02

In a message dated 10/5/05 12:59:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Interestingly, William Fitz Neal, Constable of Chester, is ancestral to
Roger de Lacy, died 1211, Constable of Chester. So, we come full
circle. >>

Could you specify the exact manner by which William is ancestral to Roger?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Abbess of Fontevrault

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 okt 2005 23:23:15

"Thierry Stasser" <thierry.stasser@tiscali.be> wrote in message
news:BF69FBA4.B23%thierry.stasser@tiscali.be...
Mathilda, second daughter of Thierry d'Alsace, count of Flanders, by his
second wife Sibylle of anjou, became a nun at Fontevrault shortly before
april 1157 . GISLEBERT de MONS: § 51, p 90-91 (ed. L VANDERKINDERE):
Theodoricus comes Flandriae de uxore sua Sibilia filios habuit et
filias...una eorum soli deo adherens et eum sibi sponsumeligens in
monasterio Fontis Evraldi religionis habitum assumpsit... See A VERHULST,
Note sur une charte de Thierry d'alsace comte de Flandre pour l'abbaye de
Fontevrault (21 avril 1157), in Etudes de civilisation mediévale. Mélanges
offerts à E R Labande, p 711-719. Mathilda became abbess in about
1189/1190,
after Marie of Champagne 'death, and died in 1194 (Gallia Christiana vol
II, col 1320).

Mathilda was apparently the third, not the second, daughter of Thierry
d'Alsace by Sibylle of Anjou. In the paper cited above, Verhulst worked out
the chronology of births from this marriage - we are told that Mathilda
entered Fontevrault at the age of 14, and was already there by 21 April
1157: the result is that she must have been born either in the last months
of 1140/first months of 1141, taking the veil ca 1154, or else born within
the nine or ten months between the birth of her brother Philippe soon after
May 1142 and April 1143. According to Verhulst, their full-sisters Gertrude
and Margaret were evidently older than Mathilda, despite the order given by
Gislebert of Mons placing Mathilda before Margaret (op cit, p. 717 note 32).
The latter was presumably born between 1137 & 1139.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Meaning of Matertera: Fitz William, Gant, and Scrope fam

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 okt 2005 00:04:01

In a message dated 10/5/05 2:29:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<<
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... style=TEXT >>

No sources....
I do see this person in my database, I have him listed as William FitzNigel
and I see Jim has his father as Neel (Nigel)
So at least I can merge what I have
But am reluctant to credit the other things Jim is showing without some
source to back it up.

Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Meaning of Matertera: Fitz William, Gant, and Scrope fam

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 06 okt 2005 05:36:53

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/5/05 2:29:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:


http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... style=TEXT

No sources....
I do see this person in my database, I have him listed as William FitzNigel
and I see Jim has his father as Neel (Nigel)
So at least I can merge what I have
But am reluctant to credit the other things Jim is showing without some
source to back it up.

And your caution is well founded. This pedigree is utterly worthless,
overflowing with unsupported connections, the most egregious being that
it shows John Fitz Richard de Lacy marrying his own niece. All of the
St. Sauveur material should be removed, as none of the purported
connections are supportable (specifically, the father of William Fitz
Nigel is a Nigel of Halton, but there is no reason whatsoever to suggest
he is the lord of St. Sauveur of the same name, while there is no
evidence for a St. Sauveur marriage in the early Bigod family).
Likewise the Bigod/le Goz connection is invented based on nothing more
that the gross similarity of the names. The Todeny ancestry, is likewise
nothing but speculation. The early Vere material is invented, as is the
Flanders connection. It even has the laughable link of Gunnora to the
King of Denmark, which is utter fantasy. I have rarely seen so many
errors, jumped conclusions, and downright BS in one pedigree, and these
are just the ones that are superficially obvious.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Meaning of Matertera: Fitz William, Gant, and Scrope fam

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 okt 2005 06:28:15

Dear taf ~

Jim Weber has correctly identified Alice, wife of John, Constable of
Chester (died 1190), as the daughter of Roger Fitz Richard (died c.
1177), of Warkworth, Northumberland, by Alice de Vere (or de Essex),
widow of Robert de Essex, and daughter of Aubrey de Vere. To verify
this, I encourage you read Chris Phillips' helpful post on this matter
from the archives which I have copied further below. Chris has
provided all of his sources.

In any event, Roger Fitz Richard, of Warkworth, can not have been the
brother of John, Constable of Chester, as you have stated. Roger Fitz
Richard was granted Warkworth, Northumberland by King Henry II in 1157,
whereas John, Constable of Chester, didn't come of age until 1166.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + +
COPY OF CHRIS PHILLIPS' POST

Kevan L. Barton wrote:
John de Lacy succeeded to the baronies of Halton and Pontefract, with the
Constableship of Chester he was also lord of Flamborough. He founded the
monastery of Hanlow, and was buried there in 1211. He married Alice de
Vere, sister of William de Mandeville. What is the Vere/Mandeville
connection and which Mandeville are we talking about?

The Complete Peerage, in a pedigree (vol.7, p.677) just shows this
couple
"John, Constable of Chester, d.1190" (and says that it was John's son
Roger
who took the name of Lacy).

I have some more notes about Alice's identity, from various authors
early
this century (when it seems to have been a matter of controversy).
Possibly
there has been some more recent work that I'm not aware of!

Most of the information comes from an article by G.H.White [Geneal.
Mag. vii
469 (1935-37)]. From the evidence of the Rotulus de Dominabus
(pp.29,76) and
the Pipe Rolls for 10 Richard I (p.118) and 1 John (p.207), John's wife
is
identified as Alice de Vere, the daughter of Alice of Essex. Although
Dugdale mis-identified her, Alice of Essex was the daughter of Aubrey
de
Vere (d.1141; the father of the first Earl of Oxford) and his wife
Alice
(the daughter of Gilbert FitzRichard of Clare and Tonbridge). Note that
John's wife Alice is a rare example of a woman using her mother's
maiden
name as her surname.

According to White, Alice of Essex had three husbands:
(i) William de Sackville, Lord of Braxted, but he was claimed as
husband by
Aubreye, daughter of Geoffrey Tregoz, who alleged a pre-contract;
although
he and Alice fought
the case, their marriage was dissolved [citing Round, Arch. J. lxiv
225;
Hall, Court Life under the Plantagenets, pp.98-112].
(ii) Robert of Essex.
(iii) Roger Fitz Richard, Lord of Warkworth, a minor Baron, whom she
also
outlived
[citing Round, Essex Arch. Soc. Trans. NS iii 245-47].

Opinions differ as to which of these husbands was the father of Alice
"de
Vere" the wife of John the constable:
Round [Essex Arch. Soc. Trans. NS iii 248] believed that her father was
RogerFitz Richard;
Farrer [Honors and Knights' Fees ii 201-2], followed by Wagner [Geneal.
Mag.
vii 471 (1935-37)],
affiliated her to Robert de Essex.
White supports Round, for two reasons:
(i) In 1185 she held in dower Clavering, which belonged to the Honor of
Rayleigh, and so came from the Honor of Essex. On her death it
escheated to
the Crown, the Honor of Rayleigh having been forfeited by Henry de
Essex in
1163. Subsequently it was granted by the king to Robert FitzRoger (her
son
by Roger Fitz Richard) [citing Essex Arch Soc Trans NS iii 247], which
makes
it unlikely there was issue living of her marriage to Robert of Essex.
(ii) Round [ibid] suggests that the elder Alice continued to style
herself
'de Essex' because Robert de Essex was more important than Roger Fitz
Richard, and because the latter had no surname. Likewise, White
suggests,
the younger Alice may have called herself 'de Vere' because her father
had
no surname and was of little importance compared with the de Veres.

That just leaves the question of why Alice de Vere is called the sister
of
William de Mandeville in your source. I haven't seen this statement
before.
I can only assume the confusion arose because the sister of Alice of
Essex,
Rohese, married Geoffrey de Mandeville and was the mother of William de
Mandeville, the 3rd Earl of Essex. (Perhaps someone assumed that Alice
de
Vere's mother, Alice of Essex, must have been the Countess of Essex who
was
a de Vere by birth?).

I hope that information's not too out of date; I'd be interested to
here if
there's been more progress in the past 60 years, such as more definite
evidence about the identity of Alice's father.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re:William de Luvetot/Lovetot

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2005 10:25:02

On June 17th 2005 John Ravilious gave an account of the Furnival descent,
including
<snip>
<Maud fitz Walter
<Birth: ca 1161[1]
<Death: aft 1196
<'..Maud, da. of Walter fitz Robert.' [CP V:580, note (g) re: wife
< of William de Luvetot[1]]
<Spouse: William de Luvetot, of Sheffield, Yorks. and Worksop, Notts.
<Death: bef 1182[1]
<Father: Richard de Luvetot (-1171)
<Mother: Cecily de Brito
<snip>
Does anybody know a source for the identification of Cecily de Brito as
William Luvetot's mother?
Was she perhaps the widow, or a daughter, of William de Aubigny Brito, died
c.
1146, whose wife has been previously identified on SGM as Cecily Bigod,
daughter of Roger Bigod and Alice de Toeni?
Gordon Kirkemo raised this question back in June 2003, when he wrote
<snip>
<Weis, in AR7 Line 148A #27, identifies Cecily de Brito as the first wife of
<Richard de Luvetot (d. 1171). Keats-Rohan, in DD page 560, identifies the
<first wife of Richard as "Cecily, daughter of Ralph."
<snip>
Mr Kirkemo asked whether Ralph Brito was Cecily's father. But the question
has not (I think) been answered
MM

John P. Ravilious

Re: Re:William de Luvetot/Lovetot

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 07 okt 2005 12:13:49

Dear Michael,

My comments/observations are interspersed below.


Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
On June 17th 2005 John Ravilious gave an account of the Furnival descent,
including
snip
Maud fitz Walter
Birth: ca 1161[1]
Death: aft 1196
'..Maud, da. of Walter fitz Robert.' [CP V:580, note (g) re: wife
of William de Luvetot[1]]
Spouse: William de Luvetot, of Sheffield, Yorks. and Worksop, Notts.
Death: bef 1182[1]
Father: Richard de Luvetot (-1171)
Mother: Cecily de Brito
snip
Does anybody know a source for the identification of Cecily de Brito as
William Luvetot's mother?


There is a charter of Cecily's granddaughter, Maud de Luvetot
(wife of Gerard de Furnival, wherein as 'Matildis de Lovetot, filia et
haeres Willielmi de Lovetot ' was a benefactor of Worksop priory - this
charter is dated after 1218 [her husband Gerard de Furnival was
deceased; Mon. Angl. VI/1:119, Num. V]. In this charter, she
identifies her grandmother, 'aviae meae Ceciliae ', as she who gave the
church of Aynesley [Annesley] to Worksop priory. We can then identify
Cecily (or Cecilia 'Brito') as the mother of William de Luvetot.


Was she perhaps the widow, or a daughter, of William de Aubigny Brito, died
c.
1146, whose wife has been previously identified on SGM as Cecily Bigod,
daughter of Roger Bigod and Alice de Toeni?


The chronology for Cecily being the daughter of Roger le Bigod,
and widow of William d'Aubigny Brito, is not good. Roger, of Earsham,
Suffolk (ca. 1071) and a tenant in chief in 1086, died in 1107, so we
can expect his numerous issue were born somewhat earlier, and no later
than 1108 if posthumous. I show an inexact date of 'ca. 1156' for the
death of William d'Aubigny, which if correct would place his widow
Cecily as then being aged 48 or more at his death - not a good age for
producing issue by a second husband.
This dating certainly could take a second look. If this were the
right family, though, I'd guess Cecily (wife of Richard de Luvetot) was
of a younger generation.


Gordon Kirkemo raised this question back in June 2003, when he wrote
snip
Weis, in AR7 Line 148A #27, identifies Cecily de Brito as the first wife of
Richard de Luvetot (d. 1171). Keats-Rohan, in DD page 560, identifies the
first wife of Richard as "Cecily, daughter of Ralph."
snip
Mr Kirkemo asked whether Ralph Brito was Cecily's father. But the question
has not (I think) been answered
MM


Cheers,

John

Gjest

Re: An admirable website for medieval genealogy

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2005 19:53:02

I found today the following website
http://www.geneajourney.com
Unfortunately the very learned and thorough author has apparently preferred
to remain anonymous, although, as is clearly from the copious citations. a
regular visitor to SGM.
Were he/she to read this, I would like to express my admiration and thanks,
and even daringly to offer future collaboration
MM

Gjest

Re: An admirable website for medieval genealogy

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2005 20:53:01

In a message dated 10/7/05 10:51:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

<< I found today the following website
http://www.geneajourney.com
Unfortunately the very learned and thorough author has apparently preferred
to remain anonymous, although, as is clearly from the copious citations. a
regular visitor to SGM. >>

Could you give us an example page that is "learned and thorough" and has
"copious citations" ? I picked one at random, and didn't see anything in
particular to recommend it over any others.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Susan Johanson

William Tyrell of Beches, Essex

Legg inn av Susan Johanson » 07 okt 2005 23:28:02

I'm looking for the parents of William Tyrell (bef 1422-c1471) of
Beches, Essex, England? Is it John Tyrrell (c1380-1437) and Alice
Coggeshall of Heron Hall? Also, does anyone have access to the
Tirrell/Tyrrell Pedigree in the Visitation for Essex 1612. Any help
straightening out the Tyrrells of Essex would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Susan

--
---
Susan C. Johanson, Haymarket VA
....Searching for footprints in the sands of time...

Gjest

Re: William Tyrell of Beches, Essex

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 okt 2005 01:15:15

Yes, they were his parents. See "The Tyrells of England" by Oliver
F. Brown (Phillimore, Chicester, Sussex, 1982). His wife was Philippa
Thornbury, daughter of John. I have that he died at London, England
about 1475.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: William Tyrell of Beches, Essex

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 08 okt 2005 01:23:08

In message of 7 Oct, scjohanson@earthlink.net (Susan Johanson) wrote:

I'm looking for the parents of William Tyrell (bef 1422-c1471) of
Beches, Essex, England? Is it John Tyrrell (c1380-1437) and Alice
Coggeshall of Heron Hall?

The Essex 1558 visitation shows, according to my notes, two Williams born
to this happy couple. One of them was of Gipping, Suffolk.

Also, does anyone have access to the Tirrell/Tyrrell Pedigree in the
Visitation for Essex 1612.

I have the 1612 Essex visitation and can send you PDFs of the relevant
pages. Or I can put them on my website if you would prefer to download
them rather than have attachments to your e-mail.

Any help straightening out the Tyrrells of Essex would be appreciated.

Not sure that the visitations straighten things out, sometimes they
make things worse. Sometimes, even, they are spot on. But they give
you information to check up on by other means.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Katheryn_Swynford

Re: William Tyrell of Beches, Essex

Legg inn av Katheryn_Swynford » 08 okt 2005 04:12:02

Tim,

If you don't mind terribly, I'd like a copy of the Tirrell Pedigree
charts as well. I think there's a Swynford-Tirrell connection
somewhere and am always looking for more info.

Thanks!

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

Gjest

Re: Meaning of Matertera: Fitz William, Gant, and Scrope fam

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 okt 2005 16:19:01

Dear Todd, Peter, Chris et al,
Is it at all possible that the
name Nigel in and of itself could not have been a derivitive of the gaelic Niall
?
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Susan Johanson

Re: William Tyrell of Beches, Essex

Legg inn av Susan Johanson » 08 okt 2005 16:30:02

Tim and Martin,
Thanks so much for the information on William Tyrell of Beches.
The two Williams made me suspicious. Tim, I would love for you to send
me PDFs of the Tirrell/Tyrrell pedigree in the Essex visitation.
Thanks so much for your help,
Susan

--
---
Susan C. Johanson, Haymarket, VA

...Searching for footprints in the sands of time...

Gjest

Re: Meaning of Matertera: Fitz William, Gant, and Scrope fam

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 okt 2005 19:15:02

In a message dated 08/10/2005 15:59:50 GMT Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

Peter Stewart wrote:
Yes, but this point of Gibbs doesn't in any way negate Todd's point, since
he was not suggesting that "Nigel" was a contemporary form in the first
place - specifically calling this "modern" - and "Neil" (or Néel as French
writers prefer) is still not the same as "Neal" derived from the Irish
Niall.


Chris Phillips reolied;


As a matter of fact, is it really the case that the spelling "Neal" is
derived from the Irish Niall?

Certainly "Neal(e)" is a much commoner English surname than "Neil". If it's
patronymic in origin, I'd have thought that would point to "Neal" as the
preferred vernacular form.

Chris Phillips



<<<<

My dictionary of First Names states that it does indeed come from the Irish
Niall (which is correctly pronounced as the English Neil), and comes from the
Irish word for champion. (and not from The Neale, co Mayo from whence my
ancestors lived, that Neale means an outcrop of rock). The name is also the
source of the name Nigel

Adrian

Gordon Banks

Re: An admirable website for medieval genealogy

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 08 okt 2005 21:20:02

Very nice looking site, indeed.

On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 13:51 -0400, Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
I found today the following website
http://www.geneajourney.com
Unfortunately the very learned and thorough author has apparently preferred
to remain anonymous, although, as is clearly from the copious citations. a
regular visitor to SGM.
Were he/she to read this, I would like to express my admiration and thanks,
and even daringly to offer future collaboration
MM

Gjest

Re:Niall etc

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 okt 2005 02:56:02

Maybe we should look further back. The Icelandic saga "The burning of Niall"
suggests a Nordic orign for the name
MM

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Niall etc

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 09 okt 2005 03:53:41

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 00:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Millerfairfield@aol.com
wrote:

Maybe we should look further back. The Icelandic saga "The
burning of Niall" suggests a Nordic orign for the name

Actually, the Irish origin of the name is well documented. It was
among the Celtic names picked up by the Scandinavians during the
Viking invasions. This seems like the most likely origin for the
Norman name "Nigel" and I have seen that suggestion made in the
literature before (although I can't remember where at the moment), but
I don't recall seeing any other suggested origin. As for the form of
the name which was in use at the time, the Latinized forms can
sometimes be very misleading. Are there any early vernacular Norman
French sources in which the name "Nigel" (or equivalent) appears?

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Niall etc

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 okt 2005 04:30:43

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9m0hk1dma5u4tl04en5g7j9l9mlqan0bpg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 00:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Millerfairfield@aol.com
wrote:

Maybe we should look further back. The Icelandic saga "The
burning of Niall" suggests a Nordic orign for the name

Actually, the Irish origin of the name is well documented. It was
among the Celtic names picked up by the Scandinavians during the
Viking invasions. This seems like the most likely origin for the
Norman name "Nigel" and I have seen that suggestion made in the
literature before (although I can't remember where at the moment), but
I don't recall seeing any other suggested origin. As for the form of
the name which was in use at the time, the Latinized forms can
sometimes be very misleading. Are there any early vernacular Norman
French sources in which the name "Nigel" (or equivalent) appears?

I'm not sure what you are getting at - you write of 'the Norman name
"Nigel"' and yet at the same time ask if '"Nigel" (or equivalent)' appears
in any Norman French source. If it does, then how is it a "Norman" name in
the first place?

I don't think anyone has claimed that "Nigel" is found written in the
vernacular by medieval authors, and more than "Neal" was. The question is,
since the name was Latinised as "Nigellus" and later adopted back from this
as "Nigel", becoming most familiar to modern readers in the latter form, why
should this not be retrospectively applied to men of the same given name who
recognised themselves in writing as "Nigellus" but whose actual spoken usage
can't be known today? Or why should another form unexampled in medieval
documents, such as "Neal", be preferred?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Niall etc

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 okt 2005 04:32:55

Ah, posting in a hurry....

My post should have read as follows:

I'm not sure what you are getting at - you write of 'the Norman name
"Nigel"' and yet at the same time ask if '"Nigel" (or equivalent)' appears
in any Norman French source. If it does not, then how is it a "Norman" name
in
the first place?

I don't think anyone has claimed that "Nigel" is found written in the
vernacular by medieval authors, any more than "Neal" was. The question is,
since the name was Latinised as "Nigellus" and later adopted back from this
as "Nigel", becoming most familiar to modern readers in the latter form, why
should this not be retrospectively applied to men of the same given name who
recognised themselves in writing as "Nigellus" but whose actual spoken usage
can't be known today? Or why should another form unexampled in medieval
documents, such as "Neal", be preferred?

Peter Stewart


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:D902f.11483$U51.2358@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9m0hk1dma5u4tl04en5g7j9l9mlqan0bpg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 00:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Millerfairfield@aol.com
wrote:

Maybe we should look further back. The Icelandic saga "The
burning of Niall" suggests a Nordic orign for the name

Actually, the Irish origin of the name is well documented. It was
among the Celtic names picked up by the Scandinavians during the
Viking invasions. This seems like the most likely origin for the
Norman name "Nigel" and I have seen that suggestion made in the
literature before (although I can't remember where at the moment), but
I don't recall seeing any other suggested origin. As for the form of
the name which was in use at the time, the Latinized forms can
sometimes be very misleading. Are there any early vernacular Norman
French sources in which the name "Nigel" (or equivalent) appears?

I'm not sure what you are getting at - you write of 'the Norman name
"Nigel"' and yet at the same time ask if '"Nigel" (or equivalent)' appears
in any Norman French source. If it does, then how is it a "Norman" name in
the first place?

I don't think anyone has claimed that "Nigel" is found written in the
vernacular by medieval authors, and more than "Neal" was. The question
is, since the name was Latinised as "Nigellus" and later adopted back from
this as "Nigel", becoming most familiar to modern readers in the latter
form, why should this not be retrospectively applied to men of the same
given name who recognised themselves in writing as "Nigellus" but whose
actual spoken usage can't be known today? Or why should another form
unexampled in medieval documents, such as "Neal", be preferred?

Peter Stewart

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Niall etc

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 09 okt 2005 05:03:37

Stewart Baldwin wrote:

Are there any early vernacular Norman
French sources in which the name "Nigel" (or equivalent) appears?

Wace (as related by van Houts) has Neel for the lord of S. Sauveur.

taf

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Niall etc

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 09 okt 2005 06:18:26

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 03:32:55 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Ah, posting in a hurry....

My post should have read as follows:

I'm not sure what you are getting at - you write of 'the Norman name
"Nigel"' and yet at the same time ask if '"Nigel" (or equivalent)' appears
in any Norman French source. If it does not, then how is it a "Norman" name
in
the first place?

I don't think anyone has claimed that "Nigel" is found written in the
vernacular by medieval authors, any more than "Neal" was. The question is,
since the name was Latinised as "Nigellus" and later adopted back from this
as "Nigel", becoming most familiar to modern readers in the latter form, why
should this not be retrospectively applied to men of the same given name who
recognised themselves in writing as "Nigellus" but whose actual spoken usage
can't be known today? Or why should another form unexampled in medieval
documents, such as "Neal", be preferred?

My comment about the possibility of finding "Nigel" (or equivalent) in
a vernacular Norman French source was intended as a hypothetical
suggestion, because any such appearance (if one could be found) would
help to clear things up.

However, what we do know is that the forms Niall (Irish) and Njál (Old
Norse) do appear in medieval vernacular sources (the former very
abundantly), and that this named has been Latinized as "Nigellus"
(see, e.g., "Irish Names" by Donnchadh Ó Corráin and Fidelma Maguire).
Given this, and in the absence of clear evidence, I do not see why the
Latin form should have any more authority about how the name was
pronounced by Anglo-Normans than the well documented vernacular
evidence from areas with which the Normans had close relations (and
from which they evidently adopted the name).

On the other hand, I see no good reason to object to the form "Nigel"
in scholarly usage regarding individuals who appear as "Nigellus".
(In fact, that would be my own preference.) As given in the items
previously quoted from CP by Gibbs, the modern form of the name would
be "Neil" (which comes from Néill, the genetive form of the Irish
Niall). I know of no justification for changing this spelling to
"Neal" in reference to medieval individuals.

Stewart Baldwin

Richard Smyth at Road Run

Re: Niall etc

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 09 okt 2005 06:21:02

I'm not sure what you are getting at - you write of 'the Norman name
"Nigel"' and yet at the same time ask if '"Nigel" (or equivalent)' appears
in any Norman French source. If it does, then how is it a "Norman" name in
the first place?

"Norman name" in this context can be read in at least two ways: "the name which, considered as a name, is a name in the language of the Normans" (which I presume is the way Peter is reading it) and "the name which names some Norman but which might be a name, say, in Latin, rather than in the vernacular of Normans" (which seems to be what Stewart Baldwin was getting at). It certainly makes sense to ask whether a name which names some Norman but which might be a name, say, in Latin is also a name in the vernacular of Normans.

Some might think that the second meaning should be expressed by "a Norman's name" but that, of course, if substituted for "a Norman name' would communicate a slightly different thought.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Peter Stewart

Re: Niall etc

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 okt 2005 07:08:20

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uh6hk1lhl9e959b3n7rka4rhtdtc66g11l@4ax.com...
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 03:32:55 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Ah, posting in a hurry....

My post should have read as follows:

I'm not sure what you are getting at - you write of 'the Norman name
"Nigel"' and yet at the same time ask if '"Nigel" (or equivalent)' appears
in any Norman French source. If it does not, then how is it a "Norman"
name
in
the first place?

I don't think anyone has claimed that "Nigel" is found written in the
vernacular by medieval authors, any more than "Neal" was. The question
is,
since the name was Latinised as "Nigellus" and later adopted back from
this
as "Nigel", becoming most familiar to modern readers in the latter form,
why
should this not be retrospectively applied to men of the same given name
who
recognised themselves in writing as "Nigellus" but whose actual spoken
usage
can't be known today? Or why should another form unexampled in medieval
documents, such as "Neal", be preferred?

My comment about the possibility of finding "Nigel" (or equivalent) in
a vernacular Norman French source was intended as a hypothetical
suggestion, because any such appearance (if one could be found) would
help to clear things up.

However, what we do know is that the forms Niall (Irish) and Njál (Old
Norse) do appear in medieval vernacular sources (the former very
abundantly), and that this named has been Latinized as "Nigellus"
(see, e.g., "Irish Names" by Donnchadh Ó Corráin and Fidelma Maguire).
Given this, and in the absence of clear evidence, I do not see why the
Latin form should have any more authority about how the name was
pronounced by Anglo-Normans than the well documented vernacular
evidence from areas with which the Normans had close relations (and
from which they evidently adopted the name).

On the other hand, I see no good reason to object to the form "Nigel"
in scholarly usage regarding individuals who appear as "Nigellus".
(In fact, that would be my own preference.) As given in the items
previously quoted from CP by Gibbs, the modern form of the name would
be "Neil" (which comes from Néill, the genetive form of the Irish
Niall). I know of no justification for changing this spelling to
"Neal" in reference to medieval individuals.

Thanks, I agree fully with your remarks except that I don't have any
preferences when it comes to names. I don't even care for consistency - on
this general subject, there was a delightful exchange between T.E. Lawrence
("of Arabia") and his publisher over the varying forms he gave for Arabic
names, particularly that of his camel Jedha, that he reported as follows
below my signature. It could just as well apply to medieval genealogy.

Peter Stewart

"I reprint here a series of questions by the publisher and answers by the
author concerning the printing of Revolt in the Desert.
Q. I attach a list of queries raised by F. who is reading the proofs. He
finds these very clean, but full of inconsistencies in the spelling of
proper names, a point which reviewers often take up. Will you annotate it in
the margin, so that I can get the proofs straightened?

A. Annotated: not very helpfully perhaps. Arabic names won't go into
English, exactly, for their consonants are not the same as ours, and their
vowels, like ours, vary from district to district. There are some
'scientific systems' of transliteration, helpful to people who know enough
Arabic not to need helping, but a wash-out for the world. I spell my names
anyhow, to show what rot the systems are.


Q. Slip 1. Jeddah and Jidda used impartially throughout. Intentional?

A. Rather!


Q. Bir Waheida was Bir Waheidi.


A. Why not? All one place.


Q. Slip 20. Nuri, Emir of the Ruwalla, belongs to the 'chief family of the
Rualla.' On Slip 23, 'Rualla horse,' and Slip 38, 'killed one Rueli.' In
later slips 'Rualla.'

A. Should have also used Ruwala and Ruala.


Q. Slip 28. The Bisaita is also spelt Biseita.

A. Good.


Q. Jedha, the she-camel, was Jedhah on Slip 40.

A. She was a splendid beast.


Q. Slip 53. 'Meleager, the immoral poet.' I have put 'immortal' poet, but
the author may mean immoral after all.

A. Immorality I know. Immortality I cannot judge. As you please: Meleager
will not sue us for libel.


Q. Slip 65. Author is addressed 'Ya Auruns,' but on Slip 56 was 'Aurans.'

A. Also Lurens and Runs: not to mention 'Shaw.' More to follow, if time
permits.


Q. Slip 78. Sherif Abd el Mayin of Slip 68 becomes el Main, el Mayein, el
Muein, el Mayin, and el Muyein.

A. Good egg. I call this really ingenious."

bonnie

Re: Haffenden of Tenterden -Bugglesden OT

Legg inn av bonnie » 09 okt 2005 10:40:02

<<
G. Amy Haffenden (c1753-1825); inherited Bugglesden from her father;
married William Hawker (c1745-1819), surgeon of Charing; they had two
sons and four daughters. As noted above, Bugglesden thus passed into
the Hawker family.

I have not traced its descent past this point.

Michael

Michael,


I wrote off-list re Bugglesden, but as you answered on list, I will
thank you here as well.

Bugglesden was sold during the lifetimes of William and Amy (HAFFENDEN)
Hawker --- in 1800 to John Avann. I have a photocopy of the
advertisement of the property when Bugglesden was put up for auction by
the estate of John Avann's grandson John. This is not a legal document
of course, but in the text is found "....[Bugglesden Farm situate in
the Parishes of Tenterden, High Halden and Biddenden....] been in the
Avann family 70 years" and a handwritten note in the margin of the same
document states, "Purchased Bugglesden in 1800." Please let me know if
a (rather lengthy or I would attach it here) description of the
property would be of interest to you. Comparing the auction description
to that in the 1820 Will of the elder John AVANN (<1740 - 1829), it
appears Bugglesden was still pretty much intact. These documents might
give some idea of the Haffendens' holdings?

Thank you again for sharing your information re Bugglesden,


Bonnie

Gjest

Re: Niall etc

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 okt 2005 13:59:46

Stewart Baldwin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 00:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Millerfairfield@aol.com
wrote:

Maybe we should look further back. The Icelandic saga "The
burning of Niall" suggests a Nordic orign for the name

Actually, the Irish origin of the name is well documented. It was
among the Celtic names picked up by the Scandinavians during the
Viking invasions.

No, the name was not picked up.
A large percentage of the Icelandic settlers were of Celtic origins,
some of the Viking had settled earlier in the Celtic lands and married
the locals and some of the Vikings themselves were of Celtic origin.
Njáll (not Niall) and Keran, Kalman and many others are in existance
in Iceland even today.

Gjest

Re: Haffenden of Tenterden -Bugglesden OT

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 okt 2005 15:08:53

Bonnie

Thank you very much for the interesting continuation in relation to
Bugglesden - you did well to spot the reference hidden amondst the
verbiage of my original post!

Kind regards

Michael

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Niall etc

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 09 okt 2005 16:13:22

sigvald@binet.is wrote:
Stewart Baldwin wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 00:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Millerfairfield@aol.com
wrote:


Maybe we should look further back. The Icelandic saga "The
burning of Niall" suggests a Nordic orign for the name

Actually, the Irish origin of the name is well documented. It was
among the Celtic names picked up by the Scandinavians during the
Viking invasions.


No, the name was not picked up.
A large percentage of the Icelandic settlers were of Celtic origins,
some of the Viking had settled earlier in the Celtic lands and married
the locals and some of the Vikings themselves were of Celtic origin.
Njáll (not Niall) and Keran, Kalman and many others are in existance
in Iceland even today.

I am not sure this is all that different from what he was saying.
However, was the presence of the name Njall is necessarily indicative of
Celtic descent? Or might there have been a two step process, with it
coming into the viking cultures in the manner you describe, but then
becoming popular enough that others used it in immitation, even those
with no celtic descent?

To put it another way, does the appearance of Nigel among the earliest
known generations of the Mowbray family demonstrate that they were
Celtic in origin? Or the San Sauveur?

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 okt 2005 01:04:02

"WILLYAM", of course -- as any fool knows.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Hilarious!

Next thing you know PMS willl be telling us _FEATHERSTONEHAUGH_ and
_CHOLMONDELEY_ are pronounced with FOUR syllables -- because they are
written as they are.

Christmas in October.

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

suntzu2

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av suntzu2 » 10 okt 2005 02:28:54

Do the words "beating a dead horse" mean anything???


Brett Ankrom



"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0kh2f.76$me7.680@eagle.america.net...
"WILLYAM", of course -- as any fool knows.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Hilarious!

Next thing you know PMS willl be telling us _FEATHERSTONEHAUGH_ and
_CHOLMONDELEY_ are pronounced with FOUR syllables -- because they are
written as they are.

Christmas in October.

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 okt 2005 02:39:26

Brett Ankrom wrote:

Do the words "beating a dead horse" mean anything???

Not to Hines - any more than "red herring" has a meaning that he can
recognise.

He won't look up the correct English pronunciation of "William", though
prognosticating about this, and yet he throws up other totally
irrelevant words that have no semi-consonantal -i in them.

The man is a fool and a pest, as everyone but himself knows only too
well.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 okt 2005 03:42:02

How gauche!

Peter M. Stewart certainly doesn't think of himself as a "dead horse" --
and neither do I.

DSH

Gjest

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 okt 2005 18:16:04

Dear Brett,
Certainly the words beating a dead horse have a meaning. It
means to engage in a pointless activity. Assume You have a horse and wagon in
many cases drover`s whip is available to the driver to make the horse go
faster. The Horse suddenly drops in it`s tracks dead. The Driver continues whipping
it to no avail. In the current thread Spencer is opting to champion the
`street `/ public pronunciation of the name William. He says Will-yam. Peter is
championing the canonical pronunciation of Will-i-am and it seems that never
the twain (i e two) shall meet (i e agree)
Sincerely,
James William Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS For the Record I not uncommonly use the even worse pronunciation
of Will-yum.

suntzu2

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av suntzu2 » 10 okt 2005 19:48:50

James,

My point exactly!


Brett Ankrom
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message news:127.6667117f.307bdfa8@aol.com...
Dear Brett,
Certainly the words beating a dead horse have a meaning.
It
means to engage in a pointless activity. Assume You have a horse and wagon
in
many cases drover`s whip is available to the driver to make the horse go
faster. The Horse suddenly drops in it`s tracks dead. The Driver continues
whipping
it to no avail. In the current thread Spencer is opting to champion the
`street `/ public pronunciation of the name William. He says Will-yam.
Peter is
championing the canonical pronunciation of Will-i-am and it seems that
never
the twain (i e two) shall meet (i e agree)
Sincerely,
James William Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS For the Record I not uncommonly use the even worse pronunciation
of Will-yum.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 okt 2005 00:20:27

It is certainly risible to hold to an idea that people who don't
pronounce "William" with THREE syllables are somehow being "sloppy" and
"not speaking clearly" or using a "street pronunciation".

Indeed Hilarious!

DSH

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 okt 2005 01:53:30

Hines wrote:

It is certainly risible to hold to an idea that people who don't
pronounce "William" with THREE syllables are somehow
being "sloppy" and "not speaking clearly" or using a "street
pronunciation".

Careers in the BBC have risen & fallen over things as small as the
second -i in William.

I live in a city named Melbourne, which the inhabitants almost all
pronounce "Malb'n". Many of them find it risible when our head of state
speaks distinctly of "Melbourne", but then she has the advantage of
having heard the name spoken by people who in turn had heard Queen
Victoria speak about her prime minister, after whom the place was
named.

So who has the correct version? Both, of course. Great changes, such as
the vowel shift in English, and lesser changes such as effectively
eliding semi-consonantal -i into a full consonant -y eventually become
"correct" when the habit (whether "sloppy" or not) is found to be
practically universal. This doesn't make the former pronunciation
incorrect - I remember an old lady in the 1960s who still said
"balcony" with the stress on the second syllable, rhyming with
"macaroni", as it had been pronounced in the 18th century. She wasn't
wrong, just out of date.

Meanwhile there is the separate problem of persons who try to ridicule
others over matters they don't themselves understand, then fail to
withdraw their jibes honorably when they have to change their tune. For
this there is no help, only contempt.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 okt 2005 05:04:37

I'm certainly not "changing my tune" either.

It is certainly risible to hold to an idea that people who don't
pronounce "William" with THREE syllables are somehow being "sloppy" and
"not speaking clearly" or using a "street pronunciation".

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 okt 2005 08:44:41

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yGF2f.161$me7.1170@eagle.america.net...
I'm certainly not "changing my tune" either.

It is certainly risible to hold to an idea that people who don't
pronounce "William" with THREE syllables are somehow being "sloppy" and
"not speaking clearly" or using a "street pronunciation".

You certainly have changed your tune, as you originally maintained,
explicitly, that William doesn't even HAVE three syllables to be pronounced,
whereas now you are admitting, implicitly, that it does have THREE after
all, but that it is equally "correct" to pronounce only two of these.

Your withdrawal of misguided insults directed at me can only be accepted
when it is proffered.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 okt 2005 10:41:33

Our Hawaiian troll knows how to squirm, but it sure can't dance.

I presume it's lamed itself by putting its foot in its mouth too often.

If and when it finishes with its feeble English lessons, designed to
confirm that pronunciation in Hawaii is different to that in London
(duh!), perhaps it can find some mediaeval genealogy to contribute - or
it is lacking in this regard too?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 okt 2005 19:34:01

NO change of tune by Hines -- whereas Peter M. Stewart [PMS] is doing a
desperate, hilarious, back and fill -- with tail between legs.

Originally he insisted only careless people, sloppy people, would
pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO syllables.

Now the fool has been backed into a corner, embarrassed by his own
supreme Olympian arrogance and *somewhat* chastened. The hard stroke
with the 2 by 4 I gave to his right temple has had *some* effect.

So, PMS now admits most people in Britain pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO
syllables -- as is true in America.

["It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."] -- PMS

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Ridiculous!

Hoist With His Own Petar!

Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.

Deeeeeelightful!

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

How about MOST CANADIANS?

MOST AUSTRALIANS?

MOST SOUTH AFRICANS?

Are they CARELESS SPEAKERS too?

One fellow here [a Texan?] admitted he sometimes pronounces "WILLIAM" as
"WILLYUM" and seems to be ashamed of that.

I certainly don't understand why. Vide supra. PMS admits most BRITONS
pronounce it that way -- "Will-yum".

"WILLYAM" and "WILLYUM" are very close in pronunciation -- and both are
quite acceptable, and by no means careless, sloppy or illiterate.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 11 okt 2005 19:36:02

"WILLYAM" and "WILLYUM" are very close in pronunciation -- and both are
quite acceptable, and by no means careless, sloppy or illiterate.

I would say that either one of the above is preferable to "WILL-I-UM,"
as they sound much less fussy.

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 11 okt 2005 20:19:43

I think the last syllable is always pronounced "-UM," no matter how
many other syllables you give it.

Ginny Wagner

RE: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 11 okt 2005 21:16:02

WILL-I-AM

;-)

Kelly Graham

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Kelly Graham » 11 okt 2005 22:36:01

How did this idiot's-topic get started ? And,. why is it still
being persued ?
The only thing about "William" that would concern me with "William"
is when and where
the name first came from, and when it started popping-up in the families I
research! But, then,
that may just be me :)

Kelly Paul Graham

If something had NOTHING to do with Medieval-Genealogy, PLEASE take
is off-list!
You're wasting space if you don't!!


----- Original Message -----
From: <mjcar@btinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: Pronunciation Of _William_


Our Hawaiian troll knows how to squirm, but it sure can't dance.

I presume it's lamed itself by putting its foot in its mouth too often.

If and when it finishes with its feeble English lessons, designed to
confirm that pronunciation in Hawaii is different to that in London
(duh!), perhaps it can find some mediaeval genealogy to contribute - or
it is lacking in this regard too?

______________________________

Gjest

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 okt 2005 22:55:03

Dear Kelly,
I seem to recall it`s being teutonic (German/ Saxon / Norse)
in origin. It comes from Wil- helm and basically means protector.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 okt 2005 23:13:51

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rHS2f.13$Su.372@eagle.america.net...
NO change of tune by Hines -- whereas Peter M. Stewart [PMS] is doing a
desperate, hilarious, back and fill -- with tail between legs.

Originally he insisted only careless people, sloppy people, would
pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO syllables.

This is an outright lie.

Now the fool has been backed into a corner, embarrassed by his own
supreme Olympian arrogance and *somewhat* chastened. The hard stroke
with the 2 by 4 I gave to his right temple has had *some* effect.

So, PMS now admits most people in Britain pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO
syllables -- as is true in America.

["It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."] -- PMS

Exactly so, and consistent with what I have said from the start. Obviously
there ARE three syllables and to sound them all is more careful than to lose
one. Hines now admits that there ARE THREE syllables, having shrieked a
different tune at first.

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Of course they are. Why shouldn't they be? How else do you think elisions
come about in the first place? The only context I know of where elisions are
the result of care rather than carelessness is in poetry where the reader
may have to follow the scansion in order to know exactly which syllables are
to be elided.

Ridiculous!

All that is ridiculous in this thread is the refusal of Hines to confess his
folly.

Hoist With His Own Petar!

Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.

Then quote me - the quotation above doesn't support your absurd claims.

William has three syllables, and a careful speaker sounds them all.

I have heard Americans calling Edinburgh "Edinburrow", with four distinct
syllables. No-one could call that careful. Common usage doesn't establish
what is alone "correct", or this clumsy version would be the right
pronunciation for Scotland's capital and its sovereign's consort's title in
some parts of the USA.

Goodness knows how it might be said by stubborn & dishonest members of the
Hawaiian cult that worships Queen Victoria....

Peter Stewart

Ginny Wagner

RE: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 11 okt 2005 23:23:02

<why is it still
being pursued > to my way of thinking, since the English
scribes in the 11 and early 12c didn't know French and it

was French/Breton/Norman people who were being written
about, it makes sense to try to understand how a name would
have sounded to their ear. From there one can try to
picture how they would have sounded the foreign name out and
tried to spell it phonetically since many of the recipients
were soldiers, not clerks and wouldn't have known how to
spell their own names.

So, if you were a fighter and WTC gave you a hunk of land
for helping him and you had to go to the local scribe who
only knew Latin or some kind of Anglo-Saxon mixture and some
of them didn't know how to spell their name in French, much
less in this foreign to tongue, then how would they
communicate?

Of course, the fighter would sound out the name, the scribe
would translate it as best he could, but when you went to
register that other piece of land that WTC had given you
over in another part of England (as he was wont to do) and
that other scribe decided to use other letters to get what
he heard maybe some flavor of Celtic ... well, you can see
how misspellings and multiple spellings of the same person's
name could come about just from ignorance; not to mention
guile or scribal error.

I would like to know how William was sounded out ... I do
have a lot of ancestors with the name William. Their
shields have Guilliame, well, Gvilliam, actually. What
would an English scribe have written Gvilliam of Gorram as?
Goeram, Gorram, Goran, Gorham, Goeram ... but what about
Humboldt? Would they just change that to the more familiar
Humbert?

There was no dictionary of French to English at the time so
how would they think about it? What letters would they
choose? It would require a very cunning linguist to get it
right. And for today, to understand properly and translate
correctly, it would take an extremely knowledgeable person
to find the proper mixes and matches.

For myself, right now, I'm scanning in an ancient tome that
is due back to the library ... quite bored so having a bit
of mental play by imagining the ways William could be
pronounced ... and mispronounced. ;-)

Ginny

Douglas Richardson

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 okt 2005 23:23:03

Peter Stewart wrote:
William has three syllables, and a careful speaker sounds them all.

Peter Stewart

Dear Gentlemen ~

My son's name is William. I pronounce his name with two syllables.
Occasionally I call him by his full name, William McConnell Richardson.
Then I use all three syllables.

So both pronunciations are correct. Stop your arguing.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 12 okt 2005 00:17:16

Peter Stewart wrote:

I have heard Americans calling Edinburgh "Edinburrow", with four distinct
syllables. No-one could call that careful. Common usage doesn't establish
what is alone "correct", or this clumsy version would be the right
pronunciation for Scotland's capital and its sovereign's consort's title in
some parts of the USA.

In this regard, it doesn't help that in Pennsylvania there is a town of
Edinboro, as well as a local University of the same name, correctly
pronounced as you have described.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 okt 2005 01:10:01

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. Stewart
---------------------------

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Ridiculous!

Hoist With His Own Petar!

Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.

Rubbish - this is not even controversial much less condemnatory.

Most speakers of most languages are careless of niceties, and that is
why pronunciation develops over time. How do you suppose the vowel
shift ever came about if everybody had been carefully enunciating every
word?

But of course this is just a smokescreen put up by the cowardly Hines:
his original folly was to INSIST that there are just TWO syllables in
William available to be pronounced. Now he implicitly acknowledges that
there are THREE after all, but he can't bring himself to withdraw the
juvenile insults that he cast about before he realised this.

Pathetic, as usual. The argument is not over the fact of pronunciation
but rather the theory of scansion. Even Richardson has the sense to see
that neither "Will-yum" nor "Will-i-um" is actually claimed by anyone
now to be wrong. Hines started out from the position that "Will-i-um"
must be wrong, and now he has changed his tune.

Deeeeeelightful!

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

How about MOST CANADIANS?

MOST AUSTRALIANS?

MOST SOUTH AFRICANS?

Are they CARELESS SPEAKERS too?

Yes of course they are, and there is no shame or obloquy in it - daily
speaking is not performed carefully by most peope in most countries,
but there are some more careful speakers everywhere who say
"Will-i-um", some intermediate speakers who say "Will-i-yum", and many
careless of the syllabic count who say "Will-yum". The variance is a
matter of individual practice and care, but not of right and wrong.

By the way, it occurs to me that the second -i in William might have
been an affectation - if so, one of many - in the 14th century. I'm not
sure about this, but I have come across a few instances of "Willielmus"
in Latin from that time and can't at the moment recall any from earlier
documents.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 okt 2005 01:18:02

"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. Stewart
---------------------------

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Ridiculous!

Hoist With His Own Petar!

Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.

Deeeeeelightful!

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

How about MOST CANADIANS?

MOST AUSTRALIANS?

MOST SOUTH AFRICANS?

Are they CARELESS SPEAKERS too?

One fellow here [a Texan?] admitted he sometimes pronounces "WILLIAM" as
"WILLYUM" and seems to be ashamed of that.

I certainly don't understand why. Vide supra. PMS admits most BRITONS
pronounce it that way -- "Will-yum".

"WILLYAM" and "WILLYUM" are very close in pronunciation -- and both are
quite acceptable, and by no means careless, sloppy or illiterate.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 okt 2005 01:34:42

I wrote:
I have heard Americans calling Edinburgh "Edinburrow", with four distinct
syllables. No-one could call that careful. Common usage doesn't establish
what is alone "correct", or this clumsy version would be the right
pronunciation for Scotland's capital and its sovereign's consort's title in
some parts of the USA.

Todd Farmerie replied:

In this regard, it doesn't help that in Pennsylvania there is a town of
Edinboro, as well as a local University of the same name, correctly
pronounced as you have described.

Yes, many Scots effectively sound four syllables when saying
"Edinburgh" too (although due to the accent this is different from
"-burrow"), but no-one could say that the name actually HAS four
syllables. This is the point about speaking vs scansion that Hines
didn't understand at first, and now won't admit.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 okt 2005 04:47:20

"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. Stewart
-------------------------------

Hilarious!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

Peter Stewart is determined to make a fool of himself again by saying
all the hundreds of millions of English-speaking folks all over the
Globe who say "WILLYUM" instead of "Will-i-um" -- as PMS insists they
should be saying -- if they were "careful" -- are designated by Stewart
as "careless speakers".

Peter Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.

Best laugh I've had all month.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 okt 2005 09:21:42

I have already answered this rot from Hines once today - evidently he thinks
that by ignoring the facts, and his initial mistake that even he has now
abandoned, and by simply repeating this distorted tripe, somehow he will
scrape out of the mess he made for himself.

Once again: I did NOT say that anyone "should" be pronouncing any word or
name, including William, in any particular way. I did NOT say that careful
enunciation of syllables is necessary, or creditable, or that carelessly
eliding them is wrong or discreditable. Quite obviously it must be to a
degree careful to speak with precision, sounding every syllable in a word
clearly, just as it must be to a degree careless not to speak precisely. It
may be described as careless to say "can't" instead of "cannot", but that is
neither here nor there as to the correctness of the elided version. The
second -i in William is unnecessary fropm the origin of the name, but it IS
there and it IS a vowel, not a consonant. Willyum is NOT the name.

To find something "hilarious" in this straightforward observation, while
failing to retract his absurd & wrong jibes, is feeble & gutless of Hines -
but then, what's new?

Peter Stewart



"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oS_2f.34$Su.416@eagle.america.net...
"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. Stewart
-------------------------------

Hilarious!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

Peter Stewart is determined to make a fool of himself again by saying
all the hundreds of millions of English-speaking folks all over the
Globe who say "WILLYUM" instead of "Will-i-um" -- as PMS insists they
should be saying -- if they were "careful" -- are designated by Stewart
as "careless speakers".

Peter Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.

Best laugh I've had all month.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 okt 2005 20:31:36

"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. Stewart
-------------------------------

Hilarious!

Veronique, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

Peter Stewart is determined to make a fool of himself again by saying
all the hundreds of millions of English-speaking folks all over the
Globe who say "WILLYUM" instead of "Will-i-um" -- as PMS insists they
should be saying -- if they were "careful" -- are designated by Stewart
as "careless speakers".

Hines has not "abandoned" anything and continues to point out precisely
what he did from the beginning.

Insisting that "WILLIAM" is "tri-syllabic" as Stewart does and that
anyone who pronounces it as "WILLYAM" or "WILLYUM" is being sloppy and
careless, is a non-starter -- risibly so.

But such risible opinions are SOP with Stewart -- demonstrating his
bollixed judgement -- but making him VERY FUNNY.

Stewart continues to do his back and fill -- tail firmly between legs --
particularly since I swatted him across the hindquarters with this
rolled up Wall Street Journal I have in my hand.

In his embarrassed, whining confusion, he is even capable of posting New
Gibberish such as this gem:

"It may be described as careless to say "can't" instead of "cannot", but
that is neither here nor there as to the correctness of the elided
version."

Peter M. Stewart -- Designated SGM Fool & Joker.

Peter Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.

Best laughs I've had all month -- and they just keep on coming.

How Sweet It Is!

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 okt 2005 22:22:13

Hines can't and won't admit that he got anything wrong - he has jumped back
into the noisome dayne of falsehood that he dug for himself over this
matter.

Of course William must be tri-syllabic, as it has three syllables. Hines
rejected this outright at first, and later acknowledged it, but now has
moronically gone back to pretending that this indisputable fact is somehow
"risible" and a "non-starter", without explaining why. Patently he has NOT
continued to say the same thing about this throughout the thread, but has
erratically tried to cover his own tracks by lying about my views.

However, he has been more consistent in his deliberate misrepresentation of
my statements. He won't engage in a logical chain of thought about the
observations on careful and careless pronunciation of syllables, but instead
reads a load of his own tripe into other people's words and then idiotically
persists in claiming that they had said so.

This craziness is evidently a panic reaction: Hines has probably prided
himself on aping the speech of the British royal family that he adores, but
having a clod's ear he doesn't actually pick up the finer points of
elocution. When the queen says "William", Hines hears "Willyum" - this is a
common enough problem of pretentious oafs who lack acute and educated
senses. I heard another such fool just yesterday, discoursing about "coral"
music, rhyming the first syllable with that of "horror" as if the singing
came from a marine reef, when he meant "choral", rhyming with "floral", as
sung by choirs, since he couln't tell the difference between the sounds
"-orr" and "-or" even though the people he wanted to impress were saying
this clearly.

Well, there's no fool like an arrogant liar who won't listen....

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0mc3f.50$Su.600@eagle.america.net...
"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. Stewart
-------------------------------

Hilarious!

Veronique, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

Peter Stewart is determined to make a fool of himself again by saying
all the hundreds of millions of English-speaking folks all over the
Globe who say "WILLYUM" instead of "Will-i-um" -- as PMS insists they
should be saying -- if they were "careful" -- are designated by Stewart
as "careless speakers".

Hines has not "abandoned" anything and continues to point out precisely
what he did from the beginning.

Insisting that "WILLIAM" is "tri-syllabic" as Stewart does and that
anyone who pronounces it as "WILLYAM" or "WILLYUM" is being sloppy and
careless, is a non-starter -- risibly so.

But such risible opinions are SOP with Stewart -- demonstrating his
bollixed judgement -- but making him VERY FUNNY.

Stewart continues to do his back and fill -- tail firmly between legs --
particularly since I swatted him across the hindquarters with this
rolled up Wall Street Journal I have in my hand.

In his embarrassed, whining confusion, he is even capable of posting New
Gibberish such as this gem:

"It may be described as careless to say "can't" instead of "cannot", but
that is neither here nor there as to the correctness of the elided
version."

Peter M. Stewart -- Designated SGM Fool & Joker.

Peter Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.

Best laughs I've had all month -- and they just keep on coming.

How Sweet It Is!

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 12 okt 2005 23:07:50

senses. I heard another such fool just yesterday, discoursing about "coral"
music, rhyming the first syllable with that of "horror" as if the singing
came from a marine reef, when he meant "choral", rhyming with "floral", as
sung by choirs, since he couln't tell the difference between the sounds
"-orr" and "-or" even though the people he wanted to impress were saying
this clearly.

Huh? What difference could there be between "-orr" and "-or"? Neither
"coral" nor "choral" is actually spelled with a double r, are they?
Must be some ultra-posh way of speaking.

Like the queen, with her high-pitched squeaking, is any model of a
sensible way to talk.

What a bunch of affected nitwits you must have for friends!

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 okt 2005 23:28:52

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129154870.767863.152070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
senses. I heard another such fool just yesterday, discoursing about
"coral"
music, rhyming the first syllable with that of "horror" as if the singing
came from a marine reef, when he meant "choral", rhyming with "floral",
as
sung by choirs, since he couln't tell the difference between the sounds
"-orr" and "-or" even though the people he wanted to impress were saying
this clearly.

Huh? What difference could there be between "-orr" and "-or"? Neither
"coral" nor "choral" is actually spelled with a double r, are they?
Must be some ultra-posh way of speaking.

Like the queen, with her high-pitched squeaking, is any model of a
sensible way to talk.

What a bunch of affected nitwits you must have for friends!

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my friends - the people I heard were
talking on the RADIO. Are you EVER capable of being sensible, or keeping
quiet about things you can know NOTHING about?

Or was this just another ignorant "feeling" that you thought worth sharing
with the newsgroup?

If you can't tell the difference between "coral" and "choral", even when
this is set out for you, LOOK THESE WORDS UP IN A DICTIONARY. This is what
Hines resolutely won't do with William in an Oxford dictionary, to see how
careful British speakers are likely to pronounce it.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 13 okt 2005 14:21:41

Peter Stewart wrote:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with my friends - the people I heard were
talking on the RADIO. Are you EVER capable of being sensible, or keeping
quiet about things you can know NOTHING about?

I should have known it was something vicarious and solitary (? sort of
like trashing and taunting people on the Internet).

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 okt 2005 22:52:00

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129209701.888072.22750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with my friends - the people I heard
were
talking on the RADIO. Are you EVER capable of being sensible, or keeping
quiet about things you can know NOTHING about?

I should have known it was something vicarious and solitary (? sort of
like trashing and taunting people on the Internet).

What on earth do you think you are talking about now? This only shows again
that you know NOTHING about the matter, or about me and my social habits:
listening to the radio can be done in company every bit as easily as alone,
an in this case took place in a car with another person on the way to lunch
with several others.

Your twisted fantasies about me and my life are too sick and inaccurate to
be decently shared with others - you would do far better to keep your
perversion solitary & secret.

Your lack of the most basic ability to anaylse what you read and come to
sensible conclusions is of course fatal for any pretension on your part to
skill in genealogy, and your exposure of that sorry fact is the ONLY value
in your futile and deeply stupid posts.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 okt 2005 07:21:02

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:E6g3f.16238$U51.11959@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| If you can't tell the difference between "coral" and "choral", even
| when this is set out for you, LOOK THESE WORDS UP
| IN A DICTIONARY.
------------------------------------

Hilarious!

There he goes again!

PMS, when he finds himself in a deep, dark, dank, foetid hole of his own
digging, just never knows when to stop.

Millions of people in America pronounce _CORAL_ and _CHORAL_ precisely
the same way -- no differences -- and they are certainly not careless or
sloppy speakers.

Sometimes Peter's Arrogant-Ignorance surprises even ME -- and I've been
watching his mental and emotional deterioration for YEARS.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 okt 2005 09:23:50

O the tedium of trying to educate an idiot who is determined to stick to his
ignorance and parade this for all to see. Comments interspersed:

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZeH3f.64$rT.564@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:E6g3f.16238$U51.11959@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| If you can't tell the difference between "coral" and "choral", even
| when this is set out for you, LOOK THESE WORDS UP
| IN A DICTIONARY.
------------------------------------

Hilarious!

There he goes again!

PMS, when he finds himself in a deep, dark, dank, foetid hole of his own
digging, just never knows when to stop.

Who do you think your preposterous bluff about hilarity can be fooling,
Hines? All readers here know perfectly well that you are not actually
laughing at your own humiliation. Logical thinking is obviously not a talent
of yours, but surely anyone would realise that your attempts at controversy
ALWAYS end up in a heap of embarrassment.

Millions of people in America pronounce _CORAL_ and _CHORAL_ precisely
the same way -- no differences -- and they are certainly not careless or
sloppy speakers.

This is utterly irrelevant to my point, which was about an Australian
speaking to an Australian audience interested in choral music, who know very
well that this does not come from coral reefs.

Millions of Americans say "tom-aydo" for what Australians call a "tom-arto",
and if a gardening expert on the radio here gave tips to his countrymen on
growing "tom-aydoes" he would be laughed to scorn. Millions of Americans
might look up the words "choral" and "coral" in Funk & Wagnell to see how
these words may be pronounced alike or differently. Each is acceptable in
the USA - that is how pronunciation develops, as I've tried to explain to
Hines from the start. The received pronunciation of any word at any time is
not obligatory for any speaker. There is no enforcement of rules.

The panic attack Hines is having about William is misguided. No-one has told
him or anyone else how they ought to say the name, but only how many
syllables it has that a careful (i.e. conventional & precise) speaker will
enunciate. Someone who took extreme care over this might actually say
"Will-i-am" with all the vowels distinct, rather than the usual "Will-i-um"
or "Will-uym". Could anyone say this idiosyncrasy is wrong? Of course not:
care is not "right" and carelessness is not "wrong" - this rigidity is
merely a figment of distressed imagination in Hines, not a statement made by
me.

The queen of Australia pronounces the name of this realm with four distinct
syllables, "Or-stra-li-a". Most of her Australian subjects call themselves
"Os-tra-lyun", sounding only three syllables. Neither she nor they feel a
compulsion to say the other must be wrong, but no-one is in any doubt who
says the word more and who less carefully. In the extreme, some people call
themselves "Stra-yun", pronouncing just two syllables, and some who plainly
care more for their nationality than for their language even voice only one
syllable, "Strine". No dictionary could as yet give this as the received
pronuniation, but who can predetermine the future sound of a word? Equally,
someone named William may choose to call himself "Wilm", and no-one else can
gainsay this. But they can say he is asking for a spoken variant of his
given name that would seem careless to most strangers.

Sometimes Peter's Arrogant-Ignorance surprises even ME -- and I've been
watching his mental and emotional deterioration for YEARS.

Rubbish - Hines has yet to score a point against me or anyone else in an
argument that I have participated in. He couldn't produce a single example
that was other than a further repetition of his own intransigent stupidity.
When he can't counter an argument he resorts to bluster and
misrepresentation, but we can all see through his crude ploys.

Peter Stewart

Don Stone

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Don Stone » 14 okt 2005 16:30:29

Peter Stewart wrote:
When he can't counter an argument he resorts to bluster and
misrepresentation, but we can all see through his crude ploys.

Peter,

We seem to be stuck in a situation where two people each are determined to
have the last word, and thus the "Pronunciation Of _William_" thread, now 49
messages, could go on for weeks.

If it really is the case that "we can all see through" the crude ploys of
your opponent, why don't you "sit tight" when the inevitable response to
your most recent message comes? Just let it pass.

-- Don Stone

Ginny Wagner

RE: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 14 okt 2005 18:36:01

When did it go from Guilliame to William? Why did it change
from G to W? What were the sounds of each in Latin? Was it
just given names that changed? How about surnames? Thanks,
Ginny

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 okt 2005 20:41:02

| Who [sic] do you think your preposterous bluff about hilarity can be
| fooling, Hines?

Peter M. Stewart [PMS] -- aka Stewart The Illiterate

--------Cordon Sanitaire-----------------------

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

PMS, aka Stewart The Illiterate, proves himself to be not only careless
and sloppy -- but also illiterate as well.

How Sweet It Is!

No, Virginia, _CHORAL_ doesn't have two "r's" -- just a silent "h".

Further, Stewart The Backfiller, after condemning the pronunciation of
_William_ as _WILLYAM_ -- saying to do so is careless and sloppy -- is
now desperately trying to carry out a strategic retreat by backing and
filling and insisting that carelessness and sloppiness are not really
"WRONG" -- just different -- you know, "multi-cultural". Hilarious!

No Sale...

Stewart The Sloppy condemned _WILLYAM_ as careless and sloppy and we'll
hold him to that pig-ignorant, anserine, cunniculan-pygan statement --
no backing and filling -- in a desperate but doomed attempt to crawl
back into his own rectum.

How Sweet It Is!

Pogue Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.

Deus Vult.

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

steven perkins

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av steven perkins » 14 okt 2005 20:46:02

Wyatt supposedly comes from Guiot. I don't know if there is any
documentary evidence for the change.

Regards,

Steven C. Perkins



On 10/14/05, Ginny Wagner <ginnywagner@austin.rr.com> wrote:
When did it go from Guilliame to William? Why did it change
from G to W? What were the sounds of each in Latin? Was it
just given names that changed? How about surnames? Thanks,
Ginny




--
Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~scperkins/

Chris Phillips

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 14 okt 2005 21:42:17

Ginny Wagner wrote:
When did it go from Guilliame to William? Why did it change
from G to W? What were the sounds of each in Latin? Was it
just given names that changed? How about surnames? Thanks,

Perhaps someone else can give you more technical details, but I think this
is a standard linguistic change in going from French to English, not
confined to names. "Guerre" to "War", "Guardian" to "Warden" and even
"Gue(s)pe" to "Wasp" are other examples.

Chris Phillips

Ginny Wagner

RE: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 14 okt 2005 21:47:02

Thank you for the reply, Steve. That is very interesting.
I've begun to wonder lately about Warren/Gorron ... and
Goreham/Boreham. Gorman and O'Gorman, on a website that
traces Cornuille/Corin genealogy, the author mentions family
members actually writing their names as Goram. Ginny

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 okt 2005 22:56:03

Good Examples!

DSH

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dip58j$fuq$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...

| Ginny Wagner wrote:
| > When did it go from Guilliame to William? Why did it change
| > from G to W? What were the sounds of each in Latin? Was it
| > just given names that changed? How about surnames? Thanks,
|
| Perhaps someone else can give you more technical details, but I think
this
| is a standard linguistic change in going from French to English, not
| confined to names. "Guerre" to "War", "Guardian" to "Warden" and even
| "Gue(s)pe" to "Wasp" are other examples.
|
| Chris Phillips

Ginny Wagner

RE: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 14 okt 2005 23:17:02

Thank you, Chris. That's very interesting ... French to
English. I wonder if a study has been done on a macro level
to test surnames with a French heritage using the changed
first letter? What a can of worms that would open! Ginny

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 okt 2005 00:06:00

"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:paQ3f.14$%L.10@trndny09...
Peter Stewart wrote:
When he can't counter an argument he resorts to bluster and
misrepresentation, but we can all see through his crude ploys.

Peter,

We seem to be stuck in a situation where two people each are determined to
have the last word, and thus the "Pronunciation Of _William_" thread, now
49 messages, could go on for weeks.

If it really is the case that "we can all see through" the crude ploys of
your opponent, why don't you "sit tight" when the inevitable response to
your most recent message comes? Just let it pass.

Because "we" in this case refers to people who are presently following the
thread - but Hines, like Richardson, relies on inattentive or casual readers
swallowing his unchallenged lies if he can get the last word, and his
misrepresentations going into an archive where people can pick up on these
cold later on.

Why else do you think these menaces persist so obtusely, again & again, when
their arguments have already blown up in their faces?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 okt 2005 00:16:56

Yet again, outright lies from Hines. I did NOT "condemn" the pronunciation
"Will-yum", that is only his misreading of my observation that it is
careless to elide a syllable in this name. I did NOT say this is "careless
and sloppy" - that is a fabrication of Hines, that he repeats becasue he has
NO rational and honest point to make. He can't hold me to a statement that
he has invented. His attempt to do so only tells against himself, as usual
with Hines when he is flailing about in a blind fury after macing himself
with his own nonsense.

Peter Stewart



"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8IT3f.85$rT.568@eagle.america.net...
| Who [sic] do you think your preposterous bluff about hilarity can be
| fooling, Hines?

Peter M. Stewart [PMS] -- aka Stewart The Illiterate

--------Cordon Sanitaire-----------------------

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

PMS, aka Stewart The Illiterate, proves himself to be not only careless
and sloppy -- but also illiterate as well.

How Sweet It Is!

No, Virginia, _CHORAL_ doesn't have two "r's" -- just a silent "h".

Further, Stewart The Backfiller, after condemning the pronunciation of
_William_ as _WILLYAM_ -- saying to do so is careless and sloppy -- is
now desperately trying to carry out a strategic retreat by backing and
filling and insisting that carelessness and sloppiness are not really
"WRONG" -- just different -- you know, "multi-cultural". Hilarious!

No Sale...

Stewart The Sloppy condemned _WILLYAM_ as careless and sloppy and we'll
hold him to that pig-ignorant, anserine, cunniculan-pygan statement --
no backing and filling -- in a desperate but doomed attempt to crawl
back into his own rectum.

How Sweet It Is!

Pogue Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.

Deus Vult.

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 okt 2005 01:12:49

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vmX3f.109$rT.560@eagle.america.net...
Peter M. Stewart [PMS] is doing a desperate, hilarious, back and fill --
with tail between legs.

Originally he insisted only careless people, sloppy people, would
pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO syllables.

I NEVER SAID THIS - that is why Hines can only repeat his lie, and has not
produced evidence to back it up.

Once again, I have NOT used the language misrepresented above by Hines.

I said that pronouncing the trisyllable William as just two syllables is
careless, as OF COURSE IT IS, no matter how many people do it, unless &
until "Will-yum" becomes the received pronunciation. It might be called
"sloppy" to pronounce the name as "Wull-yim", for instance, but not as
"Will-yum". Elision is careless of the due syllable count, but not "sloppy"
as would be hashing the word by misplacing its vowels.

As I have consistently tried to get through to Hines, THAT IS HOW
PRONUNCIATION DEVELOPS. If many people were not careless, approximate and
imitative in pronouncing words, there COULD have been no vowel shift, and we
would still be speaking English that Chaucer would recognise.

At present the standard pronunication as given by the Oxford Reference
Dictionary, is "Will-i-um". Deviations from that, to a more precise
"Will-i-am" or to a less careful "Will-i-yum" or an elision into "Will-yum",
are not to be "condemned", becasue such variations are simply the living
spoken language in action. Where it will end cannot be told, as the
development of pronunciation WILL NOT END as long as words are spoken by
more than one person.

No matter how many times Hines rehashes the nonsense from his own
insecurities that he read into my statements, he can't change what I
actually said & meant. I do not retract anything that I have written about
this. I never denied that a great many people pronounce words carelessly -
indeed, I explicitly stated this, early in the thread when it ought to have
been plain enough for even Hines to comprehend.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 okt 2005 01:43:02

Peter M. Stewart [PMS] is doing a desperate, hilarious, back and fill --
with tail between legs.

Originally he insisted only careless people, sloppy people, would
pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO syllables.

Now the fool has been backed into a corner, embarrassed by his own
supreme Olympian arrogance and *somewhat* chastened. The hard stroke
with the 2 by 4 I gave to his right temple has had *some* effect.

So, PMS now admits most people in Britain pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO
syllables -- as is true in America.

["It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."] -- PMS

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Ridiculous!

Hoist With His Own Petar!

Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.

Deeeeeelightful!

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

How about MOST CANADIANS?

MOST AUSTRALIANS?

MOST SOUTH AFRICANS?

Are they CARELESS SPEAKERS too?

One fellow here [a Texan?] admitted he sometimes pronounces "WILLIAM" as
"WILLYUM" and seems to be ashamed of that.

I certainly don't understand why. Vide supra. PMS admits most BRITONS
pronounce it that way -- "Will-yum".

"WILLYAM" and "WILLYUM" are very close in pronunciation -- and both are
quite acceptable, and by no means careless, sloppy, "common" [as a slur,
with a curled lip] or illiterate.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Don Stone

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Don Stone » 15 okt 2005 01:51:25

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:paQ3f.14$%L.10@trndny09...

We seem to be stuck in a situation where two people each are determined to
have the last word, and thus the "Pronunciation Of _William_" thread, now
49 messages, could go on for weeks.

If it really is the case that "we can all see through" the crude ploys of
your opponent, why don't you "sit tight" when the inevitable response to
your most recent message comes? Just let it pass.

Because "we" in this case refers to people who are presently following the
thread - but Hines, like Richardson, relies on inattentive or casual readers
swallowing his unchallenged lies if he can get the last word, and his
misrepresentations going into an archive where people can pick up on these
cold later on.

Suppose that someone reads through this _William_ thread in sgm, GEN-MED, or
the archives, finding your well-written and well-reasoned posts alternating
with posts consisting of such ingredients as "Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude,"
"How Sweet It Is," "KAWHOMP!!!" and "KERSPLAT!!!" When this reader comes to
the end of the thread and finds that the last post was not written by you,
is it likely that he will say to himself "Well, Stewart must have realized
he was wrong, because he didn't reply to this." I think careful readers of
this forum are very unlikely to have this reaction. If inattentive or
casual readers have this reaction or pick up some misconceptions, that's a
hazard of inattentive or casual reading which no amount of eloquence or
persistence on your part is going to solve, because these readers aren't
paying much attention anyway.

-- Don Stone

Mary Zashin

Re: Update William Gascoigne d 12 Mar 1486/7

Legg inn av Mary Zashin » 15 okt 2005 02:18:01


Will Johnson wrote:


We see on Leo's fabulous website here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 5&tree=LEO

the outline of this person
He was the son of Joan Neville, and he married Lady Margaret Percy

Leo shows no birthyear. I shall now endeavor to convince you all
that the
received ancestry or descent is flawed.

We must first hearken back to William's ancestry.
His mother Joan was the dau of John de Neville, Sheriff of Lincoln
in 1439.
This John died 17 Mar 1481/2 [called "of Althorpe"]

John in turn was the son of Sir Ralph de Neville who d 26 Feb
1457/8 by his
wife Mary de Ferrers called "Lady of Oversley"

Sir Ralph is called "second son" of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of
Westmoreland
by his wife Joan (Jane) Beaufort.

RPA says Sir Ralph is son of Earl Ralph by his first wife, Margaret
Stafford, daughter of Hugh de Stafford, 2nd Earl of Stafford. Ralph
and Margaret were married by papal dispensation dated 19 Jun 1382.
They had two sons, John and this Ralph. Margaret d. 9 Jun 1396, and
Earl Ralph married Joan Beaufort as given 29 Nov 1396. Didn't wait
long. If RPA is right, Sir Ralph would be b. before 1397, not
after. I guess it hinges on which wife was Sir Ralph's mother. . .

Mary Zashin

Now we have finally arrived at something to which we can put an
absolute date.
Ralph Nevilla and Joan Beaufort were married 29 Nov 1396.

Their eldest son Richard Neville, 1st Earl of Salisbury thus could
be born as
early as 1397 while Ralph as second son has to wait until at least
1398.

For an ultimate date we have Ralph the father dying 21 Oct 1425.

Now on to the second step.
Leo shows as one child of this William, another William b 1468 who
had a son
William b bef 1495. That puts a pretty tight boundary on the descent.

So allowing William de Gascoigne who d 12 Mar 1486/7 to be at least
17 at the
birth of his own son we get that he was b BEF 1452. Then his
mother Joan de
Neville, allowing her to be at least 13 we get born BEF 1439

This then forces her own father to be b BEF 1423, and then finally his
father, Sir Ralph de Neville d 26 Feb 1457/8 had to have been b BEF
1407

Now we already know (see far above) that this same Ralph is the
second son of
his father and thus b aft 1397.
So Sir Ralph de Neville who d 26 Feb 1457/8 has to be born 1398/1406
His son John de Neville then b 1415/22
This John de Neville's daughter Joan de Neville then b 1432/8
Joan's son William de Gascoigne then b 1445/51

Hopefully, provided all of this is correct, these tight ranges can
provide
more useful fodder for the horses.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 okt 2005 03:13:04

You are right, Don, from a perfectly reasonable point of view.

I changed my mind about this some time ago - for the first few years of my
participation in the newsgroup, I thought it best to let the offenses of
people like Brandon, Richardson and Hines go unremarked, as in the end they
invariably defeat their own purposes by twisting the statements of others
and repeating errors of their own.

However, it became apparent that this only encourages them. None of these
people is really quite so stupid as they allow themselves to appear, but
they are all incapable of saving themselves from exposure of their rational
and emotional inadequacies when they are left with what they crave above
all, the last word. That only makes them more frequent and determined
offenders, virtual addicts spouting nonsense just for the sake of
contrariness. Attention-seeking for them becomes its own reward if they are
not forced to realise that everyone sees through them.

Each time in the past that I read a series of exchanges between Richardson
and Paul Reed, without contributing, I thought it more & more bizarre that
Richardson couldn't see what a fool he was making of himself. It was
puzzling that others (eventually including myself) didn't assist and support
Paul by making it plain that they agreed with him and despised the shoddy &
fraudulent debating tactics that were so often deployed against him. If this
had been tried from the start, maybe Richardson would not have become the
monster of vanity and ineptitude that he has turned into.

The same applies to Hines: if he had been hounded into silence, as
eventually happens every time, he might have gone off for good by now with
his tail between his legs, as barking curs tend to do when their empty noise
is challenged firmly and steadily. He too could benefit from more people
speakig up as you have done below, to help him realise that he holds no
credit here and fools no-one with his juvenile antics.

Brandon evidently learns more quickly than either of these others, but then
his psychological problems may not run as deep, I suppose. However, he keeps
forgetting the last lesson he was treated to and throws up more of the same
personal baggage that he wants to attribute to me & others - alleging
snobbery or social isolation, for instance, when he has actually projected
these into the discussion from his own thoughts and fears.

I may be wrong, of course, but if everyone maintains the attitude that
silence is the best defense, when it has proved to be no defense at all,
then this newsgroup will deserve whatever comes of it.

Peter Stewart


"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hoY3f.108$hx.20@trndny08...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:paQ3f.14$%L.10@trndny09...

We seem to be stuck in a situation where two people each are determined
to have the last word, and thus the "Pronunciation Of _William_" thread,
now 49 messages, could go on for weeks.

If it really is the case that "we can all see through" the crude ploys of
your opponent, why don't you "sit tight" when the inevitable response to
your most recent message comes? Just let it pass.

Because "we" in this case refers to people who are presently following
the thread - but Hines, like Richardson, relies on inattentive or casual
readers swallowing his unchallenged lies if he can get the last word, and
his misrepresentations going into an archive where people can pick up on
these cold later on.

Suppose that someone reads through this _William_ thread in sgm, GEN-MED,
or the archives, finding your well-written and well-reasoned posts
alternating with posts consisting of such ingredients as "Hilarius Magnus
Cum Laude," "How Sweet It Is," "KAWHOMP!!!" and "KERSPLAT!!!" When this
reader comes to the end of the thread and finds that the last post was not
written by you, is it likely that he will say to himself "Well, Stewart
must have realized he was wrong, because he didn't reply to this." I
think careful readers of this forum are very unlikely to have this
reaction. If inattentive or casual readers have this reaction or pick up
some misconceptions, that's a hazard of inattentive or casual reading
which no amount of eloquence or persistence on your part is going to
solve, because these readers aren't paying much attention anyway.

-- Don Stone

Don Stone

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Don Stone » 15 okt 2005 03:56:10

Peter Stewart wrote:
You are right, Don, from a perfectly reasonable point of view.

I changed my mind about this some time ago - for the first few years of my
participation in the newsgroup, I thought it best to let the offenses of
people like Brandon, Richardson and Hines go unremarked, as in the end they
invariably defeat their own purposes by twisting the statements of others
and repeating errors of their own.

However, it became apparent that this only encourages them.

So you began actively opposing them, and apparently this also only
encourages them.

I think I understand the strategy you are following. I'm not sure how often
it is effective in achieving your aims. Sometimes some readers just get
disgusted with both sides of extended argumentative exchanges.

-- Don Stone

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 okt 2005 04:05:29

Still Hines goes on with this brainless misrepresentation of my statement.

Language and pronunciation CHANGE OVER TIME because most writers and most
speakers are not careful, i.e. (for the sake of Hines) NOT FULL OF CARE.
When they are not careful they are careless, i.e. LESS THAN CAREFUL, not
giving serious thought & attention to what they are doing. Most people in
saying "William" or any other word have NO conscious care for the sound they
are making. Children when they learn to say a word or a names simply try to
imitate what they have heard, ending up with a spoken version before they
can even know how it may be written, much less how many syllables it may
have.

It is astonishing that Hines has repeated his nonsense so many times without
once asking if I am myself careful or careless in pronouncing William - he
has just wrongly assumed from my simple observation that I must be
"condemning" other people. This is utterly unwarrnated, and the repetition
is utterly stupid.

For the umpteenth time, carelessness in writing and in speaking is NORMAL
and COMMON, not shameful, not dishonourable, not exceptionable.

Most Britons, Australians, Canadians, South Africans, New Zealanders, even
Hawaiians, are not careful in everyday speaking, and that is how received
pronunciations change over time. Most people are not even perfectly
consistent in pronunciation, so that this can develop within an individual's
lifetime. People learn from each other, they imitate and they occasionally
mistake what they hear.

Even Richardson understands the variability of enunciaton, as he reports
using two distinct pronunciations of William for his son.

But Hines has his needle stuck in a falsehood. He can't stop repeating his
nonsense, like a demented parrot.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0LZ3f.113$rT.705@eagle.america.net...
"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart
--------------------------

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Ridiculous!

Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.

How about MOST CANADIANS?

MOST AUSTRALIANS?

MOST SOUTH AFRICANS?

Are they CARELESS SPEAKERS too?

One fellow here [a Texan?] admitted he sometimes pronounces "WILLIAM" as
"WILLYUM" and seems to be ashamed of that.

I certainly don't understand why. Vide supra. PMS admits most BRITONS
pronounce it that way -- "Will-yum".

"WILLYAM" and "WILLYUM" are very close in pronunciation -- and both are
quite acceptable, and by no means careless, sloppy, "common" [as a slur,
with a curled, posh, pogueish Australian lip or lisp] or illiterate.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 okt 2005 04:20:03

"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ed_3f.197$9N.173@trndny07...
Peter Stewart wrote:
You are right, Don, from a perfectly reasonable point of view.

I changed my mind about this some time ago - for the first few years of
my participation in the newsgroup, I thought it best to let the offenses
of people like Brandon, Richardson and Hines go unremarked, as in the end
they invariably defeat their own purposes by twisting the statements of
others and repeating errors of their own.

However, it became apparent that this only encourages them.

So you began actively opposing them, and apparently this also only
encourages them.

I think I understand the strategy you are following. I'm not sure how
often it is effective in achieving your aims. Sometimes some readers just
get disgusted with both sides of extended argumentative exchanges.

I do too - and that is why I have tried to prompt others to join in what can
only be a partial & disjointed strategy if pursued by myself, Leo and very
few others. The attempt that just might work would be to overwhelm the dense
perceptions of these nuisances with a brief torrent of criticism from
multiple directions, rather than the constant battles waged by a few.

They will not be encouraged at all if they are made to see that they are
failing to win the very thing that gratifies them, the acquiescence of most
readers that they can mistake for approval & respect.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 okt 2005 04:25:02

"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart
--------------------------

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Ridiculous!

Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.

How about MOST CANADIANS?

MOST AUSTRALIANS?

MOST SOUTH AFRICANS?

Are they CARELESS SPEAKERS too?

One fellow here [a Texan?] admitted he sometimes pronounces "WILLIAM" as
"WILLYUM" and seems to be ashamed of that.

I certainly don't understand why. Vide supra. PMS admits most BRITONS
pronounce it that way -- "Will-yum".

"WILLYAM" and "WILLYUM" are very close in pronunciation -- and both are
quite acceptable, and by no means careless, sloppy, "common" [as a slur,
with a curled, posh, pogueish Australian lip or lisp] or illiterate.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 okt 2005 04:45:08

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TF_3f.116$rT.597@eagle.america.net...
"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart
--------------------------

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Nothing "ipso facto" about it, Hines - I have explicitly stated that most
people everywhere are careless speakers.

I can't imagine a more unreasoned and indeed ridiculous line of argument
(such as it is) than to suggest that most people are actually CAREFUL
speakers. Perhaps Hines needs to look up "careful" in a dictionary, to see
how preposterous it must be to suppose that care goes into the enunciation
of most words by most people.

To hepl him out, from Funk & Wagnalls:

(a) Careful: 1 Exercising, marked by, or done with care. 2 Attentive and
prudent; circumspect.

(b) Careless: 1 Neglectful; indifferent; heedless. 2 Free from solicitude or
anxiety; light-hearted. 3 Negligent, unconcerned. 4 not studied or
constrained; easy.

As I have stated from the beginning of this thread, most speakers are
careless - as in (b) 1, 2, 3 and 4 above - of their enunciaton and of the
number of unstressed syllables in saying the name William. It has three
syllables, and a minority of careful - as in (a) 1 and 2 above - speakers
enunciate them all.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 okt 2005 05:16:02

Hilarious!

This sounds like a dialogue between Tweedledum and Tweedledee called --
"Why Do I Always Shoot Myself In The Foot?"

DSH

"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ed_3f.197$9N.173@trndny07...

| Peter Stewart wrote:

I changed my mind about this some time ago - for the first few years
of my participation in the newsgroup, I thought it best to let the
offenses of people like... go unremarked, as in the end they
invariably defeat their own purposes by twisting the statements
of others and repeating errors of their own.

However, it became apparent that this only encourages them.

| So you began actively opposing them, and apparently this also only
| encourages them.
|
| I think I understand the strategy you are following. I'm not sure how
| often it is effective in achieving your aims....

<Groak!>

Stop that giggling, Vanessa, it's very unladylike -- but understandable.

DSH

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 okt 2005 05:28:02

"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart
--------------------------

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Ridiculous!

DSH
---------------------------

But Pogue Stewart is not finished -- so he insists on digging himself an
even DEEPER hole.

"When they are not careful they are careless, i.e. LESS THAN CAREFUL,
not giving serious thought & attention to what they are doing. Most
people in saying "William" or any other word have NO conscious care for
the sound they are making."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart -- SGM's Favorite Fool
----------------------------

Hilarious!

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

CED

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av CED » 15 okt 2005 06:35:15

Peter Stewart wrote:

Peter:

Your words are a good summary of the subjects mentioned; however, I
would put slighty different slant on them.

Brandon's posts, on most occasions, evince a malice toward you for
which I can only speculate a reason, i. e. an inexplicable malice
against Mr. Reed which, since you are more frequently available for an
attack, he has transferred to you.

On occasion, when his posts do deal with genealogy, I read them with
interest. Also, inexplicable is his failure to see, or if he sees to
recognize, the intellectual fraud that Richardson attempts. If Brandon
does take pleasure in attacking others in the group, Richardson
presents a much more enjoyable target.

Richardson is another matter. His attempts at lexicology in medieval
Latin are a joke. Heightening the humour of his posts is the fact that
he takes himself seriously. More laughable would be his assertion of
competence in Greek. Remember, in one of his posts his said that his
Greek was "rusty." He could, with equal merit, have made similar
admission about his Latin. If his Greek is rusty, I wonder how he
describes his competence in medieval French (a "vernacular" - I think)
or middle English (another "vernacular").

Now poor Hines is another matter. Were I in your situation, think I
would note his mental condtion and ignore him. He thrives on your
attention. My guess is that he spends his time inventing means to
provoke you and of gaining notariety. I it may be that he is still
sufficiently cogent as to benefit from some lexicology.

CED



You are right, Don, from a perfectly reasonable point of view.

I changed my mind about this some time ago - for the first few years of my
participation in the newsgroup, I thought it best to let the offenses of
people like Brandon, Richardson and Hines go unremarked, as in the end they
invariably defeat their own purposes by twisting the statements of others
and repeating errors of their own.

However, it became apparent that this only encourages them. None of these
people is really quite so stupid as they allow themselves to appear, but
they are all incapable of saving themselves from exposure of their rational
and emotional inadequacies when they are left with what they crave above
all, the last word. That only makes them more frequent and determined
offenders, virtual addicts spouting nonsense just for the sake of
contrariness. Attention-seeking for them becomes its own reward if they are
not forced to realise that everyone sees through them.

Each time in the past that I read a series of exchanges between Richardson
and Paul Reed, without contributing, I thought it more & more bizarre that
Richardson couldn't see what a fool he was making of himself. It was
puzzling that others (eventually including myself) didn't assist and support
Paul by making it plain that they agreed with him and despised the shoddy &
fraudulent debating tactics that were so often deployed against him. If this
had been tried from the start, maybe Richardson would not have become the
monster of vanity and ineptitude that he has turned into.

The same applies to Hines: if he had been hounded into silence, as
eventually happens every time, he might have gone off for good by now with
his tail between his legs, as barking curs tend to do when their empty noise
is challenged firmly and steadily. He too could benefit from more people
speakig up as you have done below, to help him realise that he holds no
credit here and fools no-one with his juvenile antics.

Brandon evidently learns more quickly than either of these others, but then
his psychological problems may not run as deep, I suppose. However, he keeps
forgetting the last lesson he was treated to and throws up more of the same
personal baggage that he wants to attribute to me & others - alleging
snobbery or social isolation, for instance, when he has actually projected
these into the discussion from his own thoughts and fears.

I may be wrong, of course, but if everyone maintains the attitude that
silence is the best defense, when it has proved to be no defense at all,
then this newsgroup will deserve whatever comes of it.

Peter Stewart


"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hoY3f.108$hx.20@trndny08...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:paQ3f.14$%L.10@trndny09...

We seem to be stuck in a situation where two people each are determined
to have the last word, and thus the "Pronunciation Of _William_" thread,
now 49 messages, could go on for weeks.

If it really is the case that "we can all see through" the crude ploys of
your opponent, why don't you "sit tight" when the inevitable response to
your most recent message comes? Just let it pass.

Because "we" in this case refers to people who are presently following
the thread - but Hines, like Richardson, relies on inattentive or casual
readers swallowing his unchallenged lies if he can get the last word, and
his misrepresentations going into an archive where people can pick up on
these cold later on.

Suppose that someone reads through this _William_ thread in sgm, GEN-MED,
or the archives, finding your well-written and well-reasoned posts
alternating with posts consisting of such ingredients as "Hilarius Magnus
Cum Laude," "How Sweet It Is," "KAWHOMP!!!" and "KERSPLAT!!!" When this
reader comes to the end of the thread and finds that the last post was not
written by you, is it likely that he will say to himself "Well, Stewart
must have realized he was wrong, because he didn't reply to this." I
think careful readers of this forum are very unlikely to have this
reaction. If inattentive or casual readers have this reaction or pick up
some misconceptions, that's a hazard of inattentive or casual reading
which no amount of eloquence or persistence on your part is going to
solve, because these readers aren't paying much attention anyway.

-- Don Stone

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 okt 2005 07:40:28

"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1129354515.142697.253720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:

Peter:

Your words are a good summary of the subjects mentioned; however, I
would put slighty different slant on them.

Brandon's posts, on most occasions, evince a malice toward you for
which I can only speculate a reason, i. e. an inexplicable malice
against Mr. Reed which, since you are more frequently available for an
attack, he has transferred to you.

On occasion, when his posts do deal with genealogy, I read them with
interest. Also, inexplicable is his failure to see, or if he sees to
recognize, the intellectual fraud that Richardson attempts. If Brandon
does take pleasure in attacking others in the group, Richardson
presents a much more enjoyable target.

As far as I can tell, the malice started from nothing more than Brandon's
wish to admire Richardson undisturbed by any home truths that he had read
about the phoney in my posts. The mystery is why he persists in reading his
own attributes into my supposed life, imagined habits and even fantasised
appearance, when he has been reminded time & again that he can know nothing
about me.

Richardson is another matter. His attempts at lexicology in medieval
Latin are a joke. Heightening the humour of his posts is the fact that
he takes himself seriously. More laughable would be his assertion of
competence in Greek. Remember, in one of his posts his said that his
Greek was "rusty." He could, with equal merit, have made similar
admission about his Latin. If his Greek is rusty, I wonder how he
describes his competence in medieval French (a "vernacular" - I think)
or middle English (another "vernacular").

Thanks for this, I had forgotten - if I ever read - that Richardson claimed
to have let his Greek go rusty, as if this had ever been a shiny, useful
object in the first place. His Latin has never been more than the thinnest
layer of flaky rust, with no iron underneath.

Now poor Hines is another matter. Were I in your situation, think I
would note his mental condtion and ignore him. He thrives on your
attention. My guess is that he spends his time inventing means to
provoke you and of gaining notariety.

Well, in a forum devoted to medieval genealogy my attention could be held
more readily, and more comfortably for Hines, by engaging in substantial and
logical discussion on topic, without debasing himself in endless, mulish
contrariness over side issues. He must know by now that he will not gain the
upper hand in SGM by bullying, lies and irrationality. He (like Brandon)
knows his own interests well enough not to support Richardson over Uriah, as
does Richardson not to support him over William, all of them recognising the
fools that the others make of themselves, and yet none of these twits can
see how much he damages himself in similar matters. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Richardson's musings was More on Richard [le] Scrope, hu

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 okt 2005 18:23:02

In a message dated 10/15/2005 9:15:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

Your eminently sensible kill-filing is perfectly understandable, Tim - but
the lack of response by people who clearly _were_ reading the posts in
question is puzzling. This is what Richardson counts on for gettting away
with his impostures, and apparently he is justified in doing so.


In my own case Peter, it's not that I ignored his assumptions, but rather, I
just noted them in my database for future reference and went along to other
things. It's just not possible in my day to respond to *every* post. And I
personally don't have many sources to inquire into things much before about
1300.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 okt 2005 20:27:02

Perennially Pretentious, Prissy, Prattling Peter is...

Still Digging in that hole he has constructed for himself.

First it was:

"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart
--------------------------

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Ridiculous!

DSH
---------------------------

Then he dug deeper:

"When they are not careful they are careless, i.e. LESS THAN CAREFUL,
not giving serious thought & attention to what they are doing. Most
people in saying "William" or any other word have NO conscious care for
the sound they are making."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart -- SGM's Favorite Fool
----------------------------

Now he digs even deeper -- water is seeping into his foetid hole and
rising 'round his rubbers:

"(b) Careless: 1 Neglectful; indifferent; heedless... 3 Negligent,
unconcerned..."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart -- SGM's Favorite Fool -- Quoting from a
favorite dictionary, which he endorses.
------------------------------------------

So now Perennially Pretentious, Prissy, Prattling Peter makes it clear
he holds that the billions of English speakers all over the Globe who
say "WILLYAM" or "WILLYUM" -- or indeed anything else but
""Will-i-um" -- the PPPPP approved and endorsed version -- are
"careless" -- "have NO conscious care for the sound they are making." --
and are "neglectful" -- "indifferent" -- "heedless" and "negligent".

Deeeeelightful!

Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Gordon Banks

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 15 okt 2005 20:54:02

If anyone is still reading this stupid thread, they must not have much
useful stuff to do. I've been deleting it for days now, but read this
one because it was posted by Don and I wondered what he had to say about
it.

On Sat, 2005-10-15 at 00:51 +0000, Don Stone wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:paQ3f.14$%L.10@trndny09...

We seem to be stuck in a situation where two people each are determined to
have the last word, and thus the "Pronunciation Of _William_" thread, now
49 messages, could go on for weeks.

If it really is the case that "we can all see through" the crude ploys of
your opponent, why don't you "sit tight" when the inevitable response to
your most recent message comes? Just let it pass.

Because "we" in this case refers to people who are presently following the
thread - but Hines, like Richardson, relies on inattentive or casual readers
swallowing his unchallenged lies if he can get the last word, and his
misrepresentations going into an archive where people can pick up on these
cold later on.

Suppose that someone reads through this _William_ thread in sgm, GEN-MED, or
the archives, finding your well-written and well-reasoned posts alternating
with posts consisting of such ingredients as "Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude,"
"How Sweet It Is," "KAWHOMP!!!" and "KERSPLAT!!!" When this reader comes to
the end of the thread and finds that the last post was not written by you,
is it likely that he will say to himself "Well, Stewart must have realized
he was wrong, because he didn't reply to this." I think careful readers of
this forum are very unlikely to have this reaction. If inattentive or
casual readers have this reaction or pick up some misconceptions, that's a
hazard of inattentive or casual reading which no amount of eloquence or
persistence on your part is going to solve, because these readers aren't
paying much attention anyway.

-- Don Stone

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 okt 2005 00:29:05

All that can be said from this unhinged blather is that Hines thinks he and
others are taking care when pronouncing the three syllables of William as
just two. He can't explain this, but he rants on about it.

Apparently Hines elocutes with studied - indeed constipated - care and yet
still manages to lose syllables as he trudges through his words.

He can't even see after a week that "careful" and "careless" in this respect
are not moral judgments, but simple observations on the natural and
unpainstaking way in which most people speak.

This includes myself: I have NOT claimed to speak carefully, and I have NOT
claimed to pronounce WIlliam in any particular way.

Who is prattling, pretentious and prissy about this is not in any doubt:
Hines has himself wound up like a two-bob watch from the terror that he
might be accused of saying a royal name carelessly.

Peter Stewart



"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uQb4f.4$qg1.380@eagle.america.net...
Perennially Pretentious, Prissy, Prattling Peter is...

Still Digging in that hole he has constructed for himself.

First it was:

"It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart
--------------------------

Hilarious!

So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.

Ridiculous!

DSH
---------------------------

Then he dug deeper:

"When they are not careful they are careless, i.e. LESS THAN CAREFUL,
not giving serious thought & attention to what they are doing. Most
people in saying "William" or any other word have NO conscious care for
the sound they are making."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart -- SGM's Favorite Fool
----------------------------

Now he digs even deeper -- water is seeping into his foetid hole and
rising 'round his rubbers:

"(b) Careless: 1 Neglectful; indifferent; heedless... 3 Negligent,
unconcerned..."

Peter M. 'Pogue' Stewart -- SGM's Favorite Fool -- Quoting from a
favorite dictionary, which he endorses.
------------------------------------------

So now Perennially Pretentious, Prissy, Prattling Peter makes it clear
he holds that the billions of English speakers all over the Globe who
say "WILLYAM" or "WILLYUM" -- or indeed anything else but
""Will-i-um" -- the PPPPP approved and endorsed version -- are
"careless" -- "have NO conscious care for the sound they are making." --
and are "neglectful" -- "indifferent" -- "heedless" and "negligent".

Deeeeelightful!

Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Gjest

Re: Languages (OT?)

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 okt 2005 08:08:02

In an interesting post James W Cummings wrote:-

<I don`t quite understand how We
<are to know with any hope of precision whether or not American, Australian
or
<modern British is closer in pronunciation to Anglo Saxon, late Medieval
Court
<English (ie between 1400-1500 ) , Elizabethan (abt 1560- 1605) or later
<forms or even of which classes it is supposed these dialects actually do
derive
<from
<snip>

Although the subject is perhaps only very peripherally relevant to medieval
genealogy, I would offer the following remarks:-
1) There is no such thing as "modern British pronunciation": travel round the
British Isles with your ears open, and you will easily be able to identify at
least 20 very different ways of talking, mostly regionally based; there are
marked differences of vocabulary as well as of pronunciation
2) If that is true today, it would surely have been true that even stronger
and more more numerous dialects would have been used in the earlier periods
mentioned by JWC. The London playwrights of the 17th century had much fun with
the rustic accents of their countrymen
3) Colonists of the west coasts of what are now the United States came from
many different parts of the British Isles, and doubtless took their native
dialects with them

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Armenters, wife of Gerard de Lis

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 okt 2005 04:57:35

In a message dated 10/17/05 6:32:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:

<< I think the timeline is a bit stretched here. If Henry de Armenters
died in 1254, >>

I thought the post said he died shortly before Mar 1256 ?
That would help a bit, she could have been as young as 39.

Will Johnson

John Brandon

Re: Fw: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 18 okt 2005 14:01:13

Brandon is so viscious but he does not see this. It is like he cuts
someone's throat and then say "don't take it seriously". I regard his
attitude as vile and as a result have no interest in reading his messages
genealogical and otherwise. In all I do not think I miss out on much.

Leo, you might want to check out my posting on the shared Estwicke
ancestry of Fergie and Camilla ...

See http://tinyurl.com/9nx5s .

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»