When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 des 2007 17:35:04

Dear Newsgroup ~

In recent times, I've posted examples drawn from contemporary English
medieval sources where the Latin word, nepos/nepoti/nepotis, was used
to mean kinsman or cousin, not nephew or grandson. Below are two more
examples, which I've labelled A and B:

A. Maurice, seigneur of Craon, died 1293, was styled "nepoti
regis" [that is, king's kinsman"] to King Edward I of England
[Reference: Byerly & Byerly, Records of the Wardrobe and Household,
1286-1289 (1986): 266]. The two men were first cousins, by virtue of
their common descent from Queen Isabel of Angoulême, died 1246, wife
successively of King John of England and Hugues de Lusignan as shown
below:

1. Isabel of Angouleme, died 1246, married (1st) King John of England.
2. King Henry III of England.
3. King Edward I of England, died 1307.

1. Isabel of Angouleme, died 1246, married (2nd) Hugues de Lusignan,
Count of la Marche.and Angoulême.
2. Isabel de Lusignan, married Maurice, seigneur of Craon.
3. Maurice, seigneur of Craon, died 1293.

B. Nicholas (or Colin) de Purle/Purley was styled kinsman ["nepotis
sui"] of lady Isabel de Vescy [Reference: Byerly & Byerly, Records of
the Wardrobe and Household, 1286-1289 (1986): 243, 258].

Lady Isabel de Vescy was the well known sister of Sir Henry de
Beaumont, 1st Lord Beaumont, Earl of Buchan and Moray [Reference:
Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 278-280 (sub Vescy)]. While Isabel
had many brothers and sisters, none of them were married to a Purle or
Purley. Hence, it appears that Nicholas or Colin de Purley, Lady
Isabel's yeoman, was more distantly related to her than being her
nephew. Quite possibly Nicholas de Purley was related to Lady Isabel
through the Tony family of England, which family was closely related
to Lady Isabel's mother, Agnes de Beaumont.

Comments are invited, indeed welcome. However, when replying, please
cite your sources and provide weblinks if you have them. Otherwise
you'll probably just be ignored.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John P. Ravilious

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 14 des 2007 17:55:02

Dear Doug,

Thanks for that last post.

One frequent error I would note. You mentioned "Nicholas (or
Colin) de Purle/Purley" as a kinsman of Isabel de Vescy. There is an
old supposed equation of Nicholas with Colin, supposedly with Nicholas
being a Latin 'equivalent' or Latinsation of the Gaelic name Chailein,
or Colin. This is quite erroneous, as when the name Colin is found in
a Latin charter or other document it is rendered 'Colinus'.

This problem has long afflicted pedigrees of the Earls of
Carrick, and of the Campbells. If this is likewise given in "Records
of the Wardrobe and Household, 1286-1289" the authors have either
followed the same error, or possibly conflated a Nicholas with a Colin
(not impossible).

Cheers,

John



On Dec 14, 11:33 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

In recent times, I've posted examples drawn from contemporary English
medieval sources where the Latin word, nepos/nepoti/nepotis, was used
to mean kinsman or cousin, not nephew or grandson. Below are two more
examples, which I've labelled A and B:

A. Maurice, seigneur of Craon, died 1293, was styled "nepoti
regis" [that is, king's kinsman"] to King Edward I of England
[Reference: Byerly & Byerly, Records of the Wardrobe and Household,
1286-1289 (1986): 266]. The two men were first cousins, by virtue of
their common descent from Queen Isabel of Angoulême, died 1246, wife
successively of King John of England and Hugues de Lusignan as shown
below:

1. Isabel of Angouleme, died 1246, married (1st) King John of England.
2. King Henry III of England.
3. King Edward I of England, died 1307.

1. Isabel of Angouleme, died 1246, married (2nd) Hugues de Lusignan,
Count of la Marche.and Angoulême.
2. Isabel de Lusignan, married Maurice, seigneur of Craon.
3. Maurice, seigneur of Craon, died 1293.

B. Nicholas (or Colin) de Purle/Purley was styled kinsman ["nepotis
sui"] of lady Isabel de Vescy [Reference: Byerly & Byerly, Records of
the Wardrobe and Household, 1286-1289 (1986): 243, 258].

Lady Isabel de Vescy was the well known sister of Sir Henry de
Beaumont, 1st Lord Beaumont, Earl of Buchan and Moray [Reference:
Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 278-280 (sub Vescy)]. While Isabel
had many brothers and sisters, none of them were married to a Purle or
Purley. Hence, it appears that Nicholas or Colin de Purley, Lady
Isabel's yeoman, was more distantly related to her than being her
nephew. Quite possibly Nicholas de Purley was related to Lady Isabel
through the Tony family of England, which family was closely related
to Lady Isabel's mother, Agnes de Beaumont.

Comments are invited, indeed welcome. However, when replying, please
cite your sources and provide weblinks if you have them. Otherwise
you'll probably just be ignored.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 des 2007 18:25:03

On Dec 14, 8:53 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:

One frequent error I would note. You mentioned "Nicholas (or
Colin) de Purle/Purley" as a kinsman of Isabel de Vescy. There is an
old supposed equation of Nicholas with Colin, supposedly with Nicholas
being a Latin 'equivalent' or Latinsation of the Gaelic name Chailein,
or Colin. This is quite erroneous, as when the name Colin is found in
a Latin charter or other document it is rendered 'Colinus'.


I have seen a different explanation for this equivalence, that Colin
was a diminutive (ala Robin, Perkin, Watkin, Wilkin, etc) based on the
middle syllable of Nicholas.



taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 des 2007 18:51:01

Dear John ~

Nicholas de Purley, Lady Isabel de Vescy's yeoman, appears in records
in this same source as both Nicholas AND Colin [see Byerly & Byerly,
Records of the Wardrobe and Household, 1286-1289 (1986), items #2248,
2279, 2284, 2290, 2372]. Thus, the editors were quite justified to
identify him as one person.

As I've stated in previous posts over the years on
soc.genealogy.medieval, Colin is the medieval nickname in England of
Nicholas, just as Colette was the female nickname for Nichole.

The other two nicknames I've noted in medieval English records are
Robin for Robert, and Harry for Henry. The latter nickname is
especially common in records from the early Modern era.

As for the "problem" that has "long afflicted" the pedigrees of the
Earls of Carrick and of the Campbells, I suggest you post on this
matter and let's see if the alleged "problem" can be resolved or
remedied.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


On Dec 14, 9:53 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
< Dear Doug,
<
< Thanks for that last post.
<
< One frequent error I would note. You mentioned "Nicholas (or
< Colin) de Purle/Purley" as a kinsman of Isabel de Vescy. There is
an
< old supposed equation of Nicholas with Colin, supposedly with
Nicholas
< being a Latin 'equivalent' or Latinsation of the Gaelic name
Chailein,
< or Colin. This is quite erroneous, as when the name Colin is found
in
< a Latin charter or other document it is rendered 'Colinus'.

John P. Ravilious

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 14 des 2007 19:05:03

Dear Todd,

There is certainly evidence that the name Colin is a Gaelic name,
not a diminutive, based on the pedigrees taken from MacFirbis (see
part of that for Campbell, below * ). The pedigree extends back to
Colin 'Mor' and his father, mid to late 13th century.

The equation of Nicholas = Colin I have seen in writers of
secondary works, or those extracted from same, but I have seen no
charter or documentary evidence that would support it. Besides the
pedigree of Campbell, examples given below are a charter naming Colin
Campbell (i.e. Colin 'Iongantach') in 1358, and also the dispensation
for his marriage in 1372 given below. I would certainly expect a
Papal document would name him Nicholas, if that had been his name, and
not use a diminutive in such an important proceeding.

If there is any evidence supporting the idea that Colin was in
fact a diminutive of Nicholas, other than an author's conjecture as to
same, I'd be most interested.

Cheers,

John


==============================

' Colin son of Gillespie Campbell and Duncan son of John Lamont
[ "Colinum filium Gillesbuig Cambel et Doncanum filium Johis
M'Lagmanid" ], entered into a bond with Gilbert of Glassary,
' promising to assist him [Gilbert] against John Cambel, Lord of
Ardskeodnish, saving the honour of the King, Sir Robert the
Steward,
and Gillespuig Cambel, Lord of Lochow',
dated at Dunoon, 31 March 1358 [Glassarie Writs p. 143, No. XII;
English rendering given in Lamont Papers pp. 10-11, No. 17]

record of a Papal indult in 1366,
" for 'Mariota, daughter of John Campbell' to marry 'John Campbell,
son of Colin Campbell', although related in the fourth degree.
' [Campbell p. 101]

dispensation for his marriage to Mariota Campbell (his son John having
died),
dated at Avignon, 16 Kal. Nov. [17 Oct] 1372
' To the bishop of Argyle. Mandate, if the facts be as stated, and
if fitting, to grant a dispensation to Colin Cambel, donsel, and Mary
Cambel, damsel, of his diocese - who, knowing that they were related
in the fourth degree of kindred, intermarried, not in contempt of the
keys, but in order to mitigate the discord between their families - to
marry anew, after being separated for such a time as shall seem
expedient, and to remain in the marriage so contracted. Their
offspring, past and future, is to be declared legitimate. ' [Papal
Letters IV:183, cites f. 225d.]

followed by the added mandate:
' To the same. Mandate, following the precedent of a declaration by
Clement VI. in a similar case of omission, to execute the above
letters, although there is no mention in them that the said Colin and
Mary were related, as stated in their petition, in the third as well
as the fourth degree of kindred. ' [Papal Letters IV:183, cites f.
226]

=============================
* ' Cailin oig mac Gillaeaspic ruaidh mic Cailin
mic Neill mic Cailin mor mic Gilleesapic
mic Dubgaill Cambel a quo mic Donnchach
mic Gillaeaspic.... ' [Skene, Celtic Scotland,
App. VIII, p. 458, cites
MS. 1467, Kilbride MS.,
ca. 1540 and MacFirbis' Gen. MS.]



On Dec 14, 12:24�pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:53 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:

� � �One frequent error I would note. �You mentioned "Nicholas (or
Colin) de Purle/Purley" as a kinsman of Isabel de Vescy. �There is an
old supposed equation of Nicholas with Colin, supposedly with Nicholas
being a Latin 'equivalent' or Latinsation of the Gaelic name Chailein,
or Colin. �This is quite erroneous, as when the name Colin is found in
a Latin charter or other document it is rendered 'Colinus'.

I have seen a different explanation for this equivalence, that Colin
was a diminutive (ala Robin, Perkin, Watkin, Wilkin, etc) based on the
middle syllable of Nicholas.

taf

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 14 des 2007 19:08:46

Douglas Richardson wrote:
As I've stated in previous posts over the years on
soc.genealogy.medieval, Colin is the medieval nickname in England of
Nicholas, just as Colette was the female nickname for Nichole.

Strictly speaking, Colin is a pet form, rather than a nickname. (Although it
is arguable that Col could be a nick form.) Good luck finding either Colette
or Nic(h)ole in medieval England - although Colet is recorded.

The other two nicknames I've noted in medieval English records are
Robin for Robert, and Harry for Henry.

Robin is again a pet form, although Harry is indeed a nickname - there is
some doubt as to whether Henry actually existed in English.

The latter nickname is
especially common in records from the early Modern era.
--

John Briggs

Gjest

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 des 2007 19:15:03

On Dec 14, 10:00 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Todd,

There is certainly evidence that the name Colin is a Gaelic name,
not a diminutive, based on the pedigrees taken from MacFirbis (see
part of that for Campbell, below * ). The pedigree extends back to
Colin 'Mor' and his father, mid to late 13th century.

The equation of Nicholas = Colin I have seen in writers of
secondary works, or those extracted from same, but I have seen no
charter or documentary evidence that would support it. Besides the
pedigree of Campbell, examples given below are a charter naming Colin
Campbell (i.e. Colin 'Iongantach') in 1358, and also the dispensation
for his marriage in 1372 given below. I would certainly expect a
Papal document would name him Nicholas, if that had been his name, and
not use a diminutive in such an important proceeding.

If there is any evidence supporting the idea that Colin was in
fact a diminutive of Nicholas, other than an author's conjecture as to
same, I'd be most interested.

I have never looked into it enough to know, but one possibility is
that the name had two coincident origins, one Gaelic as you have
described, and the other English. While of late date, the name
Collinson (son of Colin) appears in 1881 at its highest levels in a
band from the Durham to Lancashire, a similar pattern to the more
common Wilkinson and Robinson.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 des 2007 19:36:03

Dear John ~

Medieval research is always better when it is anchored to primary
contemporary documents.

Thus, it would be much better if you cited such documents and provided
your sources when posting here on the newsgroup. Otherwise you're
merely spoon feeding us your opinion, which may or may not be correct.

For example, you've stated without source or citation that "there is
some doubt as to whether Henry actually existed in English." What
contemporary documents, if any, do you have to back up this
statement?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Dec 14, 11:08 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

< Strictly speaking, Colin is a pet form, rather than a nickname.
(Although it
< is arguable that Col could be a nick form.) Good luck finding either
Colette
< or Nic(h)ole in medieval England - although Colet is recorded.
<
< Robin is again a pet form, although Harry is indeed a nickname -
there is
< some doubt as to whether Henry actually existed in English.
<
< John Briggs

Nathaniel Taylor

Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 14 des 2007 19:41:25

In article
<3ddd7e5f-07e0-4c59-bf50-217735909548@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taf@clearwire.net wrote:

If there is any evidence supporting the idea that Colin was in
fact a diminutive of Nicholas, other than an author's conjecture as to
same, I'd be most interested.

I have never looked into it enough to know, but one possibility is
that the name had two coincident origins, one Gaelic as you have
described, and the other English. While of late date, the name
Collinson (son of Colin) appears in 1881 at its highest levels in a
band from the Durham to Lancashire, a similar pattern to the more
common Wilkinson and Robinson.

A propos this, does anyone have an opinion on the interchangeability of
"Robinson" and "Robertson" as surnames? I've been looking at a printed
edition of 16th- and 17th-century records in which "Robertson" has been
indexed separately from a combined indexing of "Robeson, Robison,
Robinson or Robynson". I'm especially suspicious that printed
occurences of "Robeson" or "Robison" might actually signal the MS having
some sort of abbreviation like "Robtson", i.e. Robertson. But as for
"Robertson" versus "Robinson" or "Robynson", specifically, was there
ever a time in which these were understood to be the same surname,
simply written ad libitum?

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Don Stone

Botetourt record in Byerly and Byerly [was Re: When nepos/ne

Legg inn av Don Stone » 14 des 2007 20:44:45

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear John ~

Nicholas de Purley, Lady Isabel de Vescy's yeoman, appears in records
in this same source as both Nicholas AND Colin [see Byerly & Byerly,
Records of the Wardrobe and Household, 1286-1289 (1986), items #2248,
2279, 2284, 2290, 2372]. Thus, the editors were quite justified to
identify him as one person.


Douglas,

Speaking of Byerly & Byerly, I asked a while ago about the exact wording
of the record in Byerly & Byerly that you claimed showed that John
Botetourt had a brother Robert. I see now that what I looked at right
after Thanksgiving in the UNC library was the wrong volume, 1285-1286
(the only volume they have). However, the correct volume, 1286-1289, is
at the Family History Library in SLC, and I suspect you have looked at
it recently. Could you tell us the item # (on p. 258) that mentions
Robert, brother of John Botetourt, and quote it (or if it's a long list
of names, quote the relevant part)? I'd be very grateful.

-- Don Stone

Douglas Richardson

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 des 2007 21:20:02

On Dec 14, 11:41 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

< A propos this, does anyone have an opinion on the interchangeability
of
< "Robinson" and "Robertson" as surnames?

The surnames Robinson and Robertson are interchangeable.

DR

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 14 des 2007 21:34:17

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear John ~

Medieval research is always better when it is anchored to primary
contemporary documents.

Thus, it would be much better if you cited such documents and provided
your sources when posting here on the newsgroup. Otherwise you're
merely spoon feeding us your opinion, which may or may not be correct.

For example, you've stated without source or citation that "there is
some doubt as to whether Henry actually existed in English." What
contemporary documents, if any, do you have to back up this
statement?

"Henry" is a Normanised Germanic name. It is unclear at what point it
becomes an English name. I am not doubting the existence of "Henricus".
Would you say that "Maria" existed as an English name, as opposed to "Mary"?

(I tried to complain about the title of the Latin translation of "Harry
Potter and the Philosopher's [sic] Stone": Harrius Potter et Philosophi
Lapis. It should be "Henricus [or Haroldus] Potterius [or Figulus] et Lapis
Philosophorum".)
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

Re: Botetourt record in Byerly and Byerly [was Re: When nep

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 des 2007 22:01:02

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Dec 14, 12:44 pm, Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com> wrote:

< Douglas,
<
< Speaking of Byerly & Byerly, I asked a while ago about the exact
wording
< of the record in Byerly & Byerly that you claimed showed that John
< Botetourt had a brother Robert. I see now that what I looked at
right
< after Thanksgiving in the UNC library was the wrong volume,
1285-1286
< (the only volume they have). However, the correct volume,
1286-1289, is
< at the Family History Library in SLC, and I suspect you have looked
at
< it recently.

Yes, both volumes are here at the Family History Library in Salt Lake
City.

<Could you tell us the item # (on p. 258) that mentions
< Robert, brother of John Botetourt, and quote it (or if it's a long
list
< of names, quote the relevant part)? I'd be very grateful.

The item is #2376. I posted an exact quotation of this item earlier
today, so that should save you a trip to the library.

-- Don Stone

Douglas Richardson

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 14 des 2007 23:05:33

In article
<53511262-71c0-42ae-a8b2-497fd88673df@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:41 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

A propos this, does anyone have an opinion on the interchangeability
of "Robinson" and "Robertson" as surnames?

The surnames Robinson and Robertson are interchangeable.

Thanks for your opinion, Douglas! (Well, I suppose that's what I asked
for...)

Offlist I've been given some actual documentation of the same
individual--roughly contemporary to my records in the 17th c.--referred
by both forms in (perhaps) primary documents. I'd be interested to know
what sources might illuminate how these names were actually understood
in the early modern period, not just the apparent caprice with which one
finds either form in written records.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

wjhonson

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av wjhonson » 14 des 2007 23:20:03

To me a "pet form" is a alternate name that is somehow connected to
your actual name, while a "nick name" is a name that is completely
unrelated to your name.

Examples of pet forms:
William "Bill"
Robert "Robin"
Susannah "Suzie"
Henry "Harry"
John "Jack"

Examples of nicknames :
John "Colonel"
Mary "Sweetie"
Elizabeth "Trigger"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 des 2007 01:01:02

On Dec 14, 2:05 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In article
53511262-71c0-42ae-a8b2-497fd8867...@b4 ... groups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:41 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

A propos this, does anyone have an opinion on the interchangeability
of "Robinson" and "Robertson" as surnames?

The surnames Robinson and Robertson are interchangeable.

Thanks for your opinion, Douglas! (Well, I suppose that's what I asked
for...)

Quite. This is one of those issues that may be difficult to resolve.
I have seen cases (particularly in the regions of Pa with both Germans
and Scots) where people with two distinct names were called by the
other simply because of (apparent) familiarity. This would give the
appearance of the names being interchangeable, when in fact they were
quite distinct and only *recorded* interchangeably.

It can be very difficult to distinguish these two models, unless you
have a large number of records, or one very good one.

taf

Renia

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Renia » 15 des 2007 02:29:51

John Briggs wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear John ~

Medieval research is always better when it is anchored to primary
contemporary documents.

Thus, it would be much better if you cited such documents and provided
your sources when posting here on the newsgroup. Otherwise you're
merely spoon feeding us your opinion, which may or may not be correct.

For example, you've stated without source or citation that "there is
some doubt as to whether Henry actually existed in English." What
contemporary documents, if any, do you have to back up this
statement?


"Henry" is a Normanised Germanic name. It is unclear at what point it
becomes an English name. I am not doubting the existence of "Henricus".
Would you say that "Maria" existed as an English name, as opposed to "Mary"?

Oh, come on. Maria is the Latin form of Mary. Parish registers are
abundant with Latinised Marys.

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 15 des 2007 02:53:00

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear John ~

Medieval research is always better when it is anchored to primary
contemporary documents.

Thus, it would be much better if you cited such documents and
provided your sources when posting here on the newsgroup. Otherwise
you're merely spoon feeding us your opinion, which may or
may not be correct. For example, you've stated without source or
citation that "there is
some doubt as to whether Henry actually existed in English." What
contemporary documents, if any, do you have to back up this
statement?


"Henry" is a Normanised Germanic name. It is unclear at what point it
becomes an English name. I am not doubting the existence of
"Henricus". Would you say that "Maria" existed as an English name,
as opposed to "Mary"?

Oh, come on. Maria is the Latin form of Mary. Parish registers are
abundant with Latinised Marys.

Exactly - it is the Latin form of Mary. Maria doesn't become a name in
English until the seventeenth century.

Maria: "My name is Mary, sir." (Twelfth Night, Act 1, Sc. 3)

But I am querying when "Henry" actually became an English name. The answer
seems to be that "Harry" was the English *pronunciation* of the the French
Henri. (I suppose "Hal" would count as a nick form.) Both would presumably
be represented in Latin as Henricus.
--
John Briggs

Renia

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Renia » 15 des 2007 02:57:08

John P. Ravilious wrote:


I have seen a different explanation for this equivalence, that Colin
was a diminutive (ala Robin, Perkin, Watkin, Wilkin, etc) based on the
middle syllable of Nicholas.

Dunno about Colin being a dim. of Nicholas. But I believe it is an Irish
name.

Renia

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Renia » 15 des 2007 03:06:16

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:41 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

A propos this, does anyone have an opinion on the interchangeability
of
"Robinson" and "Robertson" as surnames?

The surnames Robinson and Robertson are interchangeable.

Not really. Robertson is the Scottish verion, Robinson, the English version.

Renia

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Renia » 15 des 2007 03:11:49

wjhonson wrote:

To me a "pet form" is a alternate name that is somehow connected to
your actual name, while a "nick name" is a name that is completely
unrelated to your name.

Examples of pet forms:
William "Bill"
Robert "Robin"
Susannah "Suzie"
Henry "Harry"
John "Jack"

Examples of nicknames :
John "Colonel"
Mary "Sweetie"
Elizabeth "Trigger"

Nicknames, pet-names, there were still some standard diminutives until
comparatively recent times:

William - Bill, Will
John - Jack
Robert - Robin
Henry - Harry
Francis - Frank
Mary - Polly, Molly
Margaret - Daisy, Peg
Elizabeth - Bess, Betsy, Liz, etc
Ann - Nancy
Esther - Hester, Easter
Frances - Fanny
Jane - Emmot, Janet
Joanna - Johnna, Joan

wjhonson

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av wjhonson » 15 des 2007 03:25:03

I'm saying that I don't view "pet names" as meaning the same thing as
"nicknames". I see them as two different meanings.

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 15 des 2007 03:40:34

In article <fjvcql$37l$1@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:41 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

A propos this, does anyone have an opinion on the interchangeability
of
"Robinson" and "Robertson" as surnames?

The surnames Robinson and Robertson are interchangeable.

Not really. Robertson is the Scottish verion, Robinson, the English version.

Well, the source I have in mind is Scottish (registers of matriculations
in the University of Glasgow); the registers (at least as printed) seem
to employ these names in equal measure, and the variants I mentioned
upthread.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Renia

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Renia » 15 des 2007 03:44:10

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

In article <fjvcql$37l$1@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Douglas Richardson wrote:


On Dec 14, 11:41 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

A propos this, does anyone have an opinion on the interchangeability
of
"Robinson" and "Robertson" as surnames?

The surnames Robinson and Robertson are interchangeable.

Not really. Robertson is the Scottish verion, Robinson, the English version.


Well, the source I have in mind is Scottish (registers of matriculations
in the University of Glasgow); the registers (at least as printed) seem
to employ these names in equal measure, and the variants I mentioned
upthread.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

ROBINSON
116,306 1901 England Census
102,821 1891 England Census
94,066 1881 England Census
80,777 1871 England Census
70,530 1861 England Census
61,486 1851 England Census
54,551 1841 England Census
2,125 1901 Scotland Census
1,770 1891 Scotland Census
1,339 1881 Scotland Census
1,301 1901 Wales Census
1,062 1891 Wales Census
1,017 1871 Scotland Census
885 1881 Wales Census
865 1861 Scotland Census
732 1851 Scotland Census
715 1841 Scotland Census
665 1871 Wales Census
483 1861 Wales Census
387 1851 Wales Census
317 1841 Wales Census
197 Slave Registers of former British Colonial Dependencies, 1812-1834
133 1891 Channel Islands Census
116 1871 Channel Islands Census
111 1881 Channel Islands Census
106 1901 Channel Islands Census
93 1901 Isle of Man Census
91 1851 Isle of Man Census
86 1851 Channel Islands Census
83 1861 Channel Islands Census
79 1841 Channel Islands Census
73 1871 Isle of Man Census
65 1881 Isle of Man Census
59 1861 Isle of Man Census
58 1891 Isle of Man Census
39 1841 Isle of Man Census

ROBERTSON
46,154 1901 Scotland Census
43,018 1891 Scotland Census
40,703 1881 Scotland Census
35,267 1871 Scotland Census
33,583 1861 Scotland Census
31,897 1851 Scotland Census
28,227 1841 Scotland Census
12,578 1901 England Census
10,151 1891 England Census
9,141 1881 England Census
6,959 1871 England Census
5,582 1861 England Census
4,441 1851 England Census
3,719 1841 England Census
358 1901 Wales Census
301 1891 Wales Census
219 1881 Wales Census
163 1871 Wales Census
112 1861 Wales Census
89 1851 Wales Census
57 1841 Wales Census
35 1881 Isle of Man Census
31 1871 Isle of Man Census
25 1901 Isle of Man Census
18 1851 Channel Islands Census
17 1891 Isle of Man Census
15 1861 Isle of Man Census
14 1841 Channel Islands Census
14 1841 Isle of Man Census
10 1861 Channel Islands Census
10 1901 Channel Islands Census
8 Slave Registers of former British Colonial Dependencies, 1812-1834
7 1891 Channel Islands Census
6 1871 Channel Islands Census
5 U.K. Census Free Sample
4 1851 Isle of Man Census
3 1881 Channel Islands Census

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 15 des 2007 03:58:07

In article <fjvf1n$3j5$1@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

In article <fjvcql$37l$1@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Not really. Robertson is the Scottish verion, Robinson, the English version.


Well, the source I have in mind is Scottish (registers of matriculations
in the University of Glasgow); the registers (at least as printed) seem
to employ these names in equal measure, and the variants I mentioned
upthread.

<snip 19th-c. census stats>

Thank you; that does appear to support the distinction of normative
forms (or names) in England and Scotland at or by then.

But I am interested in patterns of early use of this (these) name(s),
and whether and how they came to be viewed as distinct, especially with
reference to 17th-century Scotland.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Renia

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Renia » 15 des 2007 04:05:12

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article <fjvf1n$3j5$1@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Nathaniel Taylor wrote:


In article <fjvcql$37l$1@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Not really. Robertson is the Scottish verion, Robinson, the English version.


Well, the source I have in mind is Scottish (registers of matriculations
in the University of Glasgow); the registers (at least as printed) seem
to employ these names in equal measure, and the variants I mentioned
upthread.


snip 19th-c. census stats

Thank you; that does appear to support the distinction of normative
forms (or names) in England and Scotland at or by then.

But I am interested in patterns of early use of this (these) name(s),
and whether and how they came to be viewed as distinct, especially with
reference to 17th-century Scotland.

Early use? I think the sheer numbers on the 1841 census (54,500
Robinsons in England, against 28,700 Robertsons in Scotland) tells you
what you need to know. A great migration swap can't have been that heavy
in the intervening centuries.

David

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av David » 15 des 2007 05:18:02

On Dec 14, 7:53 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear John ~

Medieval research is always better when it is anchored to primary
contemporary documents.

Thus, it would be much better if you cited such documents and
provided your sources when posting here on the newsgroup. Otherwise
you're merely spoon feeding us your opinion, which may or
may not be correct. For example, you've stated without source or
citation that "there is
some doubt as to whether Henry actually existed in English." What
contemporary documents, if any, do you have to back up this
statement?

"Henry" is a Normanised Germanic name. It is unclear at what point it
becomes an English name. I am not doubting the existence of
"Henricus". Would you say that "Maria" existed as an English name,
as opposed to "Mary"?

Oh, come on. Maria is the Latin form of Mary. Parish registers are
abundant with Latinised Marys.

Exactly - it is the Latin form of Mary. Maria doesn't become a name in
English until the seventeenth century.

Maria: "My name is Mary, sir." (Twelfth Night, Act 1, Sc. 3)

But I am querying when "Henry" actually became an English name. The answer
seems to be that "Harry" was the English *pronunciation* of the the French
Henri. (I suppose "Hal" would count as a nick form.) Both would presumably
be represented in Latin as Henricus.
--
John Briggs

One of the earliest *English*-language state documents from after the
Norman Conquest is a proclamation of Henry III in 1258. It begins:

"Henri, thurgh godes fultume, king on Engleneloande. Lhoauerd on
Yrloand. Duke on Norm[andie] on Aquitain[e] and eorl on Aniow."

That is, "Henry, by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of
Ireland, Duke of Normandy, of Aquitaine, and Earl (sc. Count) of
Anjou."

Obviously "Henri" (of which "Henry" is only a spelling variant) could
be used *in English* in 1258.

The proclamation is remarkable for using English at all -- for nearly
the past two centuries, all official business had been conducted in
French or Latin. It perhaps testifies to a decrease in the
understanding of French among the local minor gentry and clergy to
whom it was addressed -- even those of Norman ancestry. Captive
England had, at long last, captured its French captors.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 des 2007 05:40:05

In the early 17th Century colonial period in England, the surnames
Robertson and Robinson are interchangeable. I'm unable to answer for
Scotland. Possibly Andrew MacEwen would know the answer to that.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 des 2007 05:46:02

On Dec 14, 8:05 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article <fjvf1n$3j...@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

In article <fjvcql$37...@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Not really. Robertson is the Scottish verion, Robinson, the English version.

Well, the source I have in mind is Scottish (registers of matriculations
in the University of Glasgow); the registers (at least as printed) seem
to employ these names in equal measure, and the variants I mentioned
upthread.

snip 19th-c. census stats

Thank you; that does appear to support the distinction of normative
forms (or names) in England and Scotland at or by then.

But I am interested in patterns of early use of this (these) name(s),
and whether and how they came to be viewed as distinct, especially with
reference to 17th-century Scotland.

Early use? I think the sheer numbers on the 1841 census (54,500
Robinsons in England, against 28,700 Robertsons in Scotland) tells you
what you need to know. A great migration swap can't have been that heavy
in the intervening centuries.

Seriously, Renia, using 19th Century census records to argue about
practices in the medieval period? That's a stretch even for you.

DR

Peter Stewart

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 des 2007 05:50:30

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d4fa2be5-e8e0-4007-a6f2-4d8fd6bb7d2d@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
In the early 17th Century colonial period in England, the surnames
Robertson and Robinson are interchangeable. I'm unable to answer for
Scotland. Possibly Andrew MacEwen would know the answer to that.

And who do you think "colonised" England in the early 17th century - the
Scots?

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 des 2007 06:31:02

On Dec 14, 7:06 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:41 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

A propos this, does anyone have an opinion on the interchangeability
of
"Robinson" and "Robertson" as surnames?

The surnames Robinson and Robertson are interchangeable.

Not really. Robertson is the Scottish verion, Robinson, the English version.

You're wrong again, Renia.

DR

Gjest

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 des 2007 06:56:01

On Dec 14, 9:25 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

You're wrong again, Renia.

No source, no web link. We all know what that means.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 des 2007 07:05:03

On Dec 14, 10:50 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

< No source, no web link. We all know what that means.
<
< taf

It means IGNORE.

DR

Gjest

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 des 2007 09:06:02

On Dec 14, 10:00 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:50 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

No source, no web link. We all know what that means.

taf

It means IGNORE.

Yes, and hence by your own silly criterion, your declaration that
Renia is wrong can rightly be ignored - Oh, I forgot, that rule only
applies when convenient to you.

taf

Renia

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Renia » 15 des 2007 12:31:47

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Dec 14, 8:05 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

In article <fjvf1n$3j...@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

In article <fjvcql$37...@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Not really. Robertson is the Scottish verion, Robinson, the English version.

Well, the source I have in mind is Scottish (registers of matriculations
in the University of Glasgow); the registers (at least as printed) seem
to employ these names in equal measure, and the variants I mentioned
upthread.

snip 19th-c. census stats

Thank you; that does appear to support the distinction of normative
forms (or names) in England and Scotland at or by then.

But I am interested in patterns of early use of this (these) name(s),
and whether and how they came to be viewed as distinct, especially with
reference to 17th-century Scotland.

Early use? I think the sheer numbers on the 1841 census (54,500
Robinsons in England, against 28,700 Robertsons in Scotland) tells you
what you need to know. A great migration swap can't have been that heavy
in the intervening centuries.


Seriously, Renia, using 19th Century census records to argue about
practices in the medieval period? That's a stretch even for you.

In the medieval period, indeed, until 1603, England and Scotland were
two different countries ruled by different monarchs. It was another
century before the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created out of
England and Scotland. Great swathes of migration and interraction
between the two countries prior to this just did not happen and that
would impact migration patterns for the following century into the
period covered by the census, and beyond. Indeed, to this day, the two
countries still have separate legal and educational systems. A few
Robinsons may have settled in Scotland at any period, and a few
Robertsons may have settled in England, but to say the two surnames were
interchangeable, is wrong.

Renia

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Renia » 15 des 2007 12:53:31

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Dec 14, 7:06 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:41 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

A propos this, does anyone have an opinion on the interchangeability
of
"Robinson" and "Robertson" as surnames?

The surnames Robinson and Robertson are interchangeable.

Not really. Robertson is the Scottish verion, Robinson, the English version.


You're wrong again, Renia.

Mr Richardson, it would be as well for Americans to remember that
England is not a village, or a town, or a county. It is a whole country.
Not everyone knows each other and not everyone has spent the centuries
aimlessly wandering up and down it spreading the seed of their surnames
to all corners and islands.

It would be as well to realise that Scotland, too, is not a village, but
a separate and distinct country from England and that, for centuries,
the two countries were at loggerheads.

The two countries, while close neighbours, have distinct and separate
histories which kept them apart, separated by hills, mountains and
border bandits.

What happened when emigrants from these two countries went to America,
is for American historians to judge. As a medieval genealogist, you
should learn that England was not Scotland, and Scotland was not
England, either during the medieval period, or after it.

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 15 des 2007 19:48:27

David wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:53 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear John ~

Medieval research is always better when it is anchored to primary
contemporary documents.

Thus, it would be much better if you cited such documents and
provided your sources when posting here on the newsgroup.
Otherwise you're merely spoon feeding us your opinion, which may
or
may not be correct. For example, you've stated without source or
citation that "there is
some doubt as to whether Henry actually existed in English." What
contemporary documents, if any, do you have to back up this
statement?

"Henry" is a Normanised Germanic name. It is unclear at what point
it becomes an English name. I am not doubting the existence of
"Henricus". Would you say that "Maria" existed as an English name,
as opposed to "Mary"?

Oh, come on. Maria is the Latin form of Mary. Parish registers are
abundant with Latinised Marys.

Exactly - it is the Latin form of Mary. Maria doesn't become a name
in English until the seventeenth century.

Maria: "My name is Mary, sir." (Twelfth Night, Act 1, Sc. 3)

But I am querying when "Henry" actually became an English name. The
answer seems to be that "Harry" was the English *pronunciation* of
the the French Henri. (I suppose "Hal" would count as a nick form.)
Both would presumably be represented in Latin as Henricus.

One of the earliest *English*-language state documents from after the
Norman Conquest is a proclamation of Henry III in 1258. It begins:

"Henri, thurgh godes fultume, king on Engleneloande. Lhoauerd on
Yrloand. Duke on Norm[andie] on Aquitain[e] and eorl on Aniow."

That is, "Henry, by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of
Ireland, Duke of Normandy, of Aquitaine, and Earl (sc. Count) of
Anjou."

Obviously "Henri" (of which "Henry" is only a spelling variant) could
be used *in English* in 1258.

The proclamation is remarkable for using English at all -- for nearly
the past two centuries, all official business had been conducted in
French or Latin. It perhaps testifies to a decrease in the
understanding of French among the local minor gentry and clergy to
whom it was addressed -- even those of Norman ancestry. Captive
England had, at long last, captured its French captors.

Except that the name is a French one, and we have a formal written document,
so we're not much further forward.
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 des 2007 20:00:04

On Dec 15, 4:53 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

< What happened when emigrants from these two countries went to
America,
< is for American historians to judge. As a medieval genealogist, you
< should learn that England was not Scotland, and Scotland was not
< England, either during the medieval period, or after it.

Actually my area of expertise is colonial and medieval genealogy. As
far as it goes, I can state that in the colonial period the names
Robinson and Robertson were interchangeable in England. I'm unable to
say anything about Scotland. For that you would need to ask Andrew
MacEwen. Andrew knows just about everything about Scottish history
and genealogy. He's always amazes me with his depth of knowledge.

Best always, Douglas Richartdson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Renia

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Renia » 15 des 2007 20:01:33

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Dec 15, 4:53 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

What happened when emigrants from these two countries went to
America,
is for American historians to judge. As a medieval genealogist, you
should learn that England was not Scotland, and Scotland was not
England, either during the medieval period, or after it.

Actually my area of expertise is colonial and medieval genealogy. As
far as it goes, I can state that in the colonial period the names
Robinson and Robertson were interchangeable in England. I'm unable to
say anything about Scotland. For that you would need to ask Andrew
MacEwen. Andrew knows just about everything about Scottish history
and genealogy. He's always amazes me with his depth of knowledge.

Does he post here?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 des 2007 20:06:02

On Dec 15, 12:01 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

< Does he post here?

No, but I'll be glad to ask him a question for you the next time I
speak with him.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Hovite

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Hovite » 15 des 2007 20:40:04

On Dec 15, 1:57 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
John P. Ravilious wrote:

I have seen a different explanation for this equivalence, that Colin
was a diminutive (ala Robin, Perkin, Watkin, Wilkin, etc) based on the
middle syllable of Nicholas.

Dunno about Colin being a dim. of Nicholas. But I believe it is an Irish
name.

No, Colinus/Colin is by derivation a diminutive of Nicolaus/Nicholaus/
Nicholas, but has since become naturalized in Ireland and Scotland and
misinterpreted as a Celtic name. Likewise he surname Campbell, with
which Colin is strongly associated, is a French/Latin name
subsequently given a false Celtic explanation.

Colinus is recorded from Berkshire in 1191, and in Suffolk a Colinus
Harrengod in 1207 was is the previous year Nicholaus Harengot.

Renia

Re: Colin / Wilkin / Robin etc. (was re: nepos = kinsman)

Legg inn av Renia » 15 des 2007 23:37:55

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:01 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Does he post here?

No, but I'll be glad to ask him a question for you the next time I
speak with him.

Great. Who on earth is he? I've never heard of him.

Jan Böhme

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 16 des 2007 11:35:04

On 15 Dec, 05:09, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:

Obviously "Henri" (of which "Henry" is only a spelling variant)

Indeed - used as an alternative (albeit progressively more unusual) in
French to this day.

could be used *in English* in 1258.

Yes, but that doesn't prove anything as to whether the name so used in
an English text actually is an English name, rather than a French one.
I can give you lots of quotes in contemporary English texts containing
the name "Hu Yaobang". You surely wouldn't use this as a proof that
"Hu Yaobang" is an English name.

The problem here is that the French name Henri/Henry may well be
written exactly the same way as the English name "Henry". However,
_if_ John is correct that the original English pronunciation of
"Henry" is "Harry", then one can fairly assume that all occurrences of
"Henry" before the first appearance of "Harry" in an English text
actually refer to the French name.

Jan Böhme

Jan Böhme

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 16 des 2007 11:45:04

On 14 Dec, 19:08, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:

As I've stated in previous posts over the years on
soc.genealogy.medieval, Colin is the medieval nickname in England of
Nicholas, just as Colette was the female nickname for Nichole.

Strictly speaking, Colin is a pet form, rather than a nickname.

I thought pet forms were included under nicknames, rather than being a
different category. At least from a standpoint of etymology, a
nickname is anything that you're called that isn't your name.

Jan Böhme

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 des 2007 16:37:14

Jan Böhme wrote:
On 14 Dec, 19:08, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:

As I've stated in previous posts over the years on
soc.genealogy.medieval, Colin is the medieval nickname in England of
Nicholas, just as Colette was the female nickname for Nichole.

Strictly speaking, Colin is a pet form, rather than a nickname.

I thought pet forms were included under nicknames, rather than being a
different category. At least from a standpoint of etymology, a
nickname is anything that you're called that isn't your name.

In which case they aren't strictly nicknames - we should be talking about
hypocoristic names, and they are mostly diminutives or double diminutives.
In a very real sense, they *were* your name, in a way that epithets and
pejorative nicknames weren't.
--
John Briggs

Renia

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Renia » 16 des 2007 16:44:57

Piggybacking.
Douglas Richardson wrote:


As I've stated in previous posts over the years on
soc.genealogy.medieval, Colin is the medieval nickname in England of
Nicholas, just as Colette was the female nickname for Nichole.

Colette is the shortened form or diminutive of the French name,
Nicolette. With that in mind, I can see the reasoning for Colin being a
French diminutive for Nicholas (pron. Col-ann).

Jan Böhme

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 16 des 2007 17:11:02

On 16 Dec, 16:37, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote:
On 14 Dec, 19:08, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Strictly speaking, Colin is a pet form, rather than a nickname.

I thought pet forms were included under nicknames, rather than being a
different category. At least from a standpoint of etymology, a
nickname is anything that you're called that isn't your name.

In which case they aren't strictly nicknames - we should be talking about
hypocoristic names, and they are mostly diminutives or double diminutives.

But there is no semantic difference between "pet name" and
"hypocoristic name", is there? The latter just sounds more fancy, and
suggests a little more that one knows what one is talking about,
that's all.

In a very real sense, they *were* your name, in a way that epithets and
pejorative nicknames weren't.

Now we're getting into philosophy, but are really things that you
always are called by your intimate friends necessarily more your name
than things that you always are called by your enemies?

This said, I agree that, for instance the more or less fossilised
diminutives of Russian names must be regarded as proper names. If a
certain name form is compulsory whenever you use first name alone,
then it is a compulsory variant of a proper name.

Jan Böhme

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 des 2007 17:47:13

Jan Böhme wrote:
On 16 Dec, 16:37, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote:
On 14 Dec, 19:08, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Strictly speaking, Colin is a pet form, rather than a nickname.

I thought pet forms were included under nicknames, rather than
being a different category. At least from a standpoint of
etymology, a nickname is anything that you're called that isn't
your name.

In which case they aren't strictly nicknames - we should be talking
about hypocoristic names, and they are mostly diminutives or double
diminutives.

But there is no semantic difference between "pet name" and
"hypocoristic name", is there? The latter just sounds more fancy, and
suggests a little more that one knows what one is talking about,
that's all.

The semantic difference is that hypocoristic names are not nicknames. I was
mistaken in trying to perpetuate a distinction between nick forms and pet
forms for diminutives.

In a very real sense, they *were* your name, in a way that epithets
and pejorative nicknames weren't.

Now we're getting into philosophy, but are really things that you
always are called by your intimate friends necessarily more your name
than things that you always are called by your enemies?

This said, I agree that, for instance the more or less fossilised
diminutives of Russian names must be regarded as proper names. If a
certain name form is compulsory whenever you use first name alone,
then it is a compulsory variant of a proper name.

We are dealing with the special circumstances of medieval England, where
there was distinct shortage of names.

"Will was a distinct youth from Willot, Willot from Wilmot, Wilmot from
Wilkin, and Wilkin from Wilcock. There might be half a dozen Johns about the
farmstead, but it mattered little so long as one was called Jack, another
Jenning, a third Jenkin, a fourth Jackcock (now Jacox as a surname), a fifth
Brownjohn, and a sixth Micklejohn, or Littlejohn, or Properjohn (i.e. well
built or handsome)."

Charles W. Bardsley, Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature.
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 des 2007 18:02:40

Renia wrote:
Piggybacking.
Douglas Richardson wrote:

As I've stated in previous posts over the years on
soc.genealogy.medieval, Colin is the medieval nickname in England
of Nicholas, just as Colette was the female nickname for Nichole.

Colette is the shortened form or diminutive of the French name,
Nicolette. With that in mind, I can see the reasoning for Colin being
a French diminutive for Nicholas (pron. Col-ann).

For that you'd need to find it in France. But he's just tying himself in
knots - as I said, he'd be hard pressed to find examples of "Colette" from
England.
--
John Briggs

David

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av David » 16 des 2007 19:11:04

On Dec 16, 4:30 am, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:
On 15 Dec, 05:09, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:

Obviously "Henri" (of which "Henry" is only a spelling variant)

Indeed - used as an alternative (albeit progressively more unusual) in
French to this day.

could be used *in English* in 1258.

Yes, but that doesn't prove anything as to whether the name so used in
an English text actually is an English name, rather than a French one.
I can give you lots of quotes in contemporary English texts containing
the name "Hu Yaobang". You surely wouldn't use this as a proof that
"Hu Yaobang" is an English name.

The problem here is that the French name Henri/Henry may well be
written exactly the same way as the English name "Henry". However,
_if_ John is correct that the original English pronunciation of
"Henry" is "Harry", then one can fairly assume that all occurrences of
"Henry" before the first appearance of "Harry" in an English text
actually refer to the French name.

Jan Böhme

That's the sort of argument that is non-falsifiable: any instance of
"Henry" in an English text can be deemed French, and only instances of
"Harry" will be found to be English!

Of course in the 13th century the distinction is meaningless; the name
is not an Anglo-Saxon one (although Saxon*ized* versions of it appear,
e.g. "Heanric", "Heinric", with reference to foreigners) and early
English instances of it are going to be "French", that is, used by
people influenced by the nomenclature habitual to the Norman-Angevin-
French ruling class -- which by the 13th century was pretty much
everybody in England.

Given what is known about the history and transmission of the name, I
see no reason to suppose that "Harry" is the "original pronunciation"
of "Henry" in English -- the "original pronunciation" would have been
the closest approximation of French "Henri" in an English mouth in the
11th century, when the name was introduced. I do not know enough
about medieval Norman-French to know exactly what that would have
been, but all the borrowings of French -en- into English that I think
of are pronounced with a lax e-sound, and are sharply distinct from -
an- (which frequently became labialized to -aun-). The Anglo-Saxon
"Heanric" types -- if they were at all propagated and not displaced by
new Norman-French pronunciations -- would also naturally have
developed into "Henry". That a pronunciation [hari] or [har:i]
eventually arose is certain, and it may even have been fairly early,
but it seems most probable that it's derived directly from a name
pronounced, more or less, [hEnri]. Whether the [a] of the name is
from the frequent change of English [Er] to [ar], or is influenced by
the French change of [E~] to [a~], I don't know, but the probability
of a change *within* English seems greater than the likelihood of
"Henri" being borrowed ab initio with the *pronunciation* [har:i].
The use of an initial [h] is a rather strong indication that the
spelling was being followed, unless [h] was conserved, or
reintroduced, in Norman-French.

edespalais@yahoo.fr

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av edespalais@yahoo.fr » 16 des 2007 21:00:03

On 16 déc, 19:06, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:30 am, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:



On 15 Dec, 05:09, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:

Obviously "Henri" (of which "Henry" is only a spelling variant)

Indeed - used as an alternative (albeit progressively more unusual) in
French to this day.

could be used *in English* in 1258.

Yes, but that doesn't prove anything as to whether the name so used in
an English text actually is an English name, rather than a French one.
I can give you lots of quotes in contemporary English texts containing
the name "Hu Yaobang". You surely wouldn't use this as a proof that
"Hu Yaobang" is an English name.

The problem here is that the French name Henri/Henry may well be
written exactly the same way as the English name "Henry". However,
_if_ John is correct that the original English pronunciation of
"Henry" is "Harry", then one can fairly assume that all occurrences of
"Henry" before the first appearance of "Harry" in an English text
actually refer to the French name.

Jan Böhme

That's the sort of argument that is non-falsifiable: any instance of
"Henry" in an English text can be deemed French, and only instances of
"Harry" will be found to be English!

Of course in the 13th century the distinction is meaningless; the name
is not an Anglo-Saxon one (although Saxon*ized* versions of it appear,
e.g. "Heanric", "Heinric", with reference to foreigners) and early
English instances of it are going to be "French", that is, used by
people influenced by the nomenclature habitual to the Norman-Angevin-
French ruling class -- which by the 13th century was pretty much
everybody in England.

Given what is known about the history and transmission of the name, I
see no reason to suppose that "Harry" is the "original pronunciation"
of "Henry" in English -- the "original pronunciation" would have been
the closest approximation of French "Henri" in an English mouth in the
11th century, when the name was introduced. I do not know enough
about medieval Norman-French to know exactly what that would have
been, but all the borrowings of French -en- into English that I think
of are pronounced with a lax e-sound, and are sharply distinct from -
an- (which frequently became labialized to -aun-). The Anglo-Saxon
"Heanric" types -- if they were at all propagated and not displaced by
new Norman-French pronunciations -- would also naturally have
developed into "Henry". That a pronunciation [hari] or [har:i]
eventually arose is certain, and it may even have been fairly early,
but it seems most probable that it's derived directly from a name
pronounced, more or less, [hEnri]. Whether the [a] of the name is
from the frequent change of English [Er] to [ar], or is influenced by
the French change of [E~] to [a~], I don't know, but the probability
of a change *within* English seems greater than the likelihood of
"Henri" being borrowed ab initio with the *pronunciation* [har:i].
The use of an initial [h] is a rather strong indication that the
spelling was being followed, unless [h] was conserved, or
reintroduced, in Norman-French.

When will somebody quote the word "nepos" as it should be quoted
correctly ("nepoti", may appear in the original text; but that is an
other business!)?

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 des 2007 21:10:11

edespalais@yahoo.fr wrote:
When will somebody quote the word "nepos" as it should be quoted
correctly ("nepoti", may appear in the original text; but that is an
other business!)?

Do you actually have anything to contribute, or are you just whingeing?
--
John Briggs

Renia

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Renia » 16 des 2007 21:10:14

David wrote:

On Dec 16, 4:30 am, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:

On 15 Dec, 05:09, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:


Obviously "Henri" (of which "Henry" is only a spelling variant)

Indeed - used as an alternative (albeit progressively more unusual) in
French to this day.


could be used *in English* in 1258.

Yes, but that doesn't prove anything as to whether the name so used in
an English text actually is an English name, rather than a French one.
I can give you lots of quotes in contemporary English texts containing
the name "Hu Yaobang". You surely wouldn't use this as a proof that
"Hu Yaobang" is an English name.

The problem here is that the French name Henri/Henry may well be
written exactly the same way as the English name "Henry". However,
_if_ John is correct that the original English pronunciation of
"Henry" is "Harry", then one can fairly assume that all occurrences of
"Henry" before the first appearance of "Harry" in an English text
actually refer to the French name.

Jan Böhme


That's the sort of argument that is non-falsifiable: any instance of
"Henry" in an English text can be deemed French, and only instances of
"Harry" will be found to be English!

Not really. It's to do with pronounciation. Henry in French and Harry in
English sound similar, particularly if you take into account the English
lack of talent for adopting French accents.

Renia

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Renia » 16 des 2007 21:11:02

David wrote:


Of course in the 13th century the distinction is meaningless; the name
is not an Anglo-Saxon one (although Saxon*ized* versions of it appear,
e.g. "Heanric", "Heinric", with reference to foreigners) and early
English instances of it are going to be "French", that is, used by
people influenced by the nomenclature habitual to the Norman-Angevin-
French ruling class -- which by the 13th century was pretty much
everybody in England.

Really?

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 des 2007 21:19:29

Renia wrote:
David wrote:

Of course in the 13th century the distinction is meaningless; the
name is not an Anglo-Saxon one (although Saxon*ized* versions of it
appear, e.g. "Heanric", "Heinric", with reference to foreigners) and
early English instances of it are going to be "French", that is,
used by people influenced by the nomenclature habitual to the
Norman-Angevin- French ruling class -- which by the 13th century was
pretty much everybody in England.

Really?

"Before many generations had passed, Bartholomew, Simon, Peter, Philip,
Thomas, Nicholas, John and Elias, had engrossed a third of the male
population; yet the Domesday Book has no Philip, no Thomas, only one
Nicholas, and but a sprinkling of Johns. It was not long before Jack and
Jill took the place of Godric and Godgivu as representative of the English
sexes, yet Jack was from the Bible, and Jill from the saintly Calendar."

Charles W. Bardsley, Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclture, p.2.
--
John Briggs

Renia

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Renia » 16 des 2007 22:40:53

John Briggs wrote:
Renia wrote:

David wrote:

Of course in the 13th century the distinction is meaningless; the
name is not an Anglo-Saxon one (although Saxon*ized* versions of it
appear, e.g. "Heanric", "Heinric", with reference to foreigners) and
early English instances of it are going to be "French", that is,
used by people influenced by the nomenclature habitual to the
Norman-Angevin- French ruling class -- which by the 13th century was
pretty much everybody in England.

Really?


"Before many generations had passed, Bartholomew, Simon, Peter, Philip,
Thomas, Nicholas, John and Elias, had engrossed a third of the male
population; yet the Domesday Book has no Philip, no Thomas, only one
Nicholas, and but a sprinkling of Johns. It was not long before Jack and
Jill took the place of Godric and Godgivu as representative of the English
sexes, yet Jack was from the Bible, and Jill from the saintly Calendar."

Charles W. Bardsley, Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclture, p.2.

Well, there was one Thomas. He was Archbishop of York, also known as
Thomas of Bayeux. There were 5 men called Nicholas in Domesday Book.
Ncolaus Aurifaber was goldsmith to Earl Hugh of Chester. Nicolaus
Balistarius appeared in Domesday Devon. A tenand of William de Warenne
in Cambridgeshire, was Nicolaus De Kenet. A man called Nicolaus was
tenant of Abingdon Abbey, and another appears in Staffordshire and was
probably sheriff. There were ten people called John, 3 called Simon and
8 called Peter in Domesday Book.

Jan Böhme

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 16 des 2007 22:41:04

On 16 Dec, 19:06, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:30 am, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:

The problem here is that the French name Henri/Henry may well be
written exactly the same way as the English name "Henry". However,
_if_ John is correct that the original English pronunciation of
"Henry" is "Harry", then one can fairly assume that all occurrences of
"Henry" before the first appearance of "Harry" in an English text
^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^
actually refer to the French name.

That's the sort of argument that is non-falsifiable: any instance of
"Henry" in an English text can be deemed French, and only instances of
"Harry" will be found to be English!

Not quite. See added emphasis above (needs fixed pitch to be exact).
Please also note the condition, where I actually used emphasis already
in my original. I usually mean something with exactly everything I
write, even on Usenet. Might be useful to keep in mind for future
reference.

Given what is known about the history and transmission of the name, I
see no reason to suppose that "Harry" is the "original pronunciation"
of "Henry" in English -- the "original pronunciation" would have been
the closest approximation of French "Henri" in an English mouth in the
11th century, when the name was introduced.

...in an English mouth engaged in talking running English sentences,
yes.

I do not know enough
about medieval Norman-French to know exactly what that would have
been, but all the borrowings of French -en- into English that I think
of are pronounced with a lax e-sound, and are sharply distinct from -
an- (which frequently became labialized to -aun-).

This would be a very surprising development, if it were not caused by
pronunciation influenced by reading (supposedly a good deal later than
the Conquest itself, then). The pronunciations of the nasals "-
en" (not preceded by an i) and "-an" coalesced very early in French.
This coalescensce is attested already in the Chanson de Roland, where,
for instance, "vent" and "tant" form an assonance. (Well, they
certainly also formed a rhyme, only the Chanson de Roland uses
assonance rather than rhyme, as all contemporary French poetry.) Thus,
it is present in French poetry written at the latest about the same
time as the conquest - and poetic language tends to be conservative
rather than innovative.

Thus, the Norman invaders of 1066 in all likelihood pronounced their
"en" nasals exactly the same way as their "an" nasals.

The Anglo-Saxon
"Heanric" types -- if they were at all propagated and not displaced by
new Norman-French pronunciations -- would also naturally have
developed into "Henry". That a pronunciation [hari] or [har:i]
eventually arose is certain, and it may even have been fairly early,
but it seems most probable that it's derived directly from a name
pronounced, more or less, [hEnri].

Such a pronunciation would be entirely dependent on a surviving Anglo-
Saxon "Heanric" influencing the English pronunciation of "Henri". The
merging of the combinations "an" and "en" into nasalized vowels is
extremely early in proto-French, which is, in all likelihood, attested
already in the Kassel Glossary, thought to have been compiled around
A.D 800, some forty years before the Strassburg oaths. Thus, there
would most definitely have been no audible [n] in "Henri", as it was
pronounced by the Norman invaders.

Whether the [a] of the name is
from the frequent change of English [Er] to [ar], or is influenced by
the French change of [E~] to [a~], I don't know, but the probability
of a change *within* English seems greater than the likelihood of
"Henri" being borrowed ab initio with the *pronunciation* [har:i].

As I wrote above, the change from [E~] to [a~] is early, and attested
already in the Chanson de Roland. It is thus likely that the French
name already was pronounced [ha~'ri] when it came to England.

The use of an initial [h] is a rather strong indication that the
spelling was being followed, unless [h] was conserved, or
reintroduced, in Norman-French.

The h aspirée, introduced into Gallo-Romance by Frankish and other
Germanic loanwords, was pronounced quite generally in French up to the
end of the Middle Ages (and is still pronounced in some Walloon
dialects). We can thus be pretty certain that the Norman invaders
pronunced "Henri" with an audible initial h - in particular as they
had a more recent Germanic admixture than the rest of the French.

Jan Böhme

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 des 2007 22:56:56

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
Renia wrote:

David wrote:

Of course in the 13th century the distinction is meaningless; the
name is not an Anglo-Saxon one (although Saxon*ized* versions of it
appear, e.g. "Heanric", "Heinric", with reference to foreigners)
and early English instances of it are going to be "French", that
is, used by people influenced by the nomenclature habitual to the
Norman-Angevin- French ruling class -- which by the 13th century
was pretty much everybody in England.

Really?


"Before many generations had passed, Bartholomew, Simon, Peter,
Philip, Thomas, Nicholas, John and Elias, had engrossed a third of
the male population; yet the Domesday Book has no Philip, no Thomas,
only one Nicholas, and but a sprinkling of Johns. It was not long
before Jack and Jill took the place of Godric and Godgivu as
representative of the English sexes, yet Jack was from the Bible,
and Jill from the saintly Calendar." Charles W. Bardsley, Curiosities of
Puritan Nomenclture, p.2.

Well, there was one Thomas. He was Archbishop of York, also known as
Thomas of Bayeux. There were 5 men called Nicholas in Domesday Book.
Ncolaus Aurifaber was goldsmith to Earl Hugh of Chester. Nicolaus
Balistarius appeared in Domesday Devon. A tenand of William de Warenne
in Cambridgeshire, was Nicolaus De Kenet. A man called Nicolaus was
tenant of Abingdon Abbey, and another appears in Staffordshire and was
probably sheriff. There were ten people called John, 3 called Simon
and 8 called Peter in Domesday Book.

Perhaps he meant TRE?
--
John Briggs

Renia

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Renia » 16 des 2007 23:02:24

John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:


David wrote:


Of course in the 13th century the distinction is meaningless; the
name is not an Anglo-Saxon one (although Saxon*ized* versions of it
appear, e.g. "Heanric", "Heinric", with reference to foreigners)
and early English instances of it are going to be "French", that
is, used by people influenced by the nomenclature habitual to the
Norman-Angevin- French ruling class -- which by the 13th century
was pretty much everybody in England.

Really?


"Before many generations had passed, Bartholomew, Simon, Peter,
Philip, Thomas, Nicholas, John and Elias, had engrossed a third of
the male population; yet the Domesday Book has no Philip, no Thomas,
only one Nicholas, and but a sprinkling of Johns. It was not long
before Jack and Jill took the place of Godric and Godgivu as
representative of the English sexes, yet Jack was from the Bible,
and Jill from the saintly Calendar." Charles W. Bardsley, Curiosities of
Puritan Nomenclture, p.2.

Well, there was one Thomas. He was Archbishop of York, also known as
Thomas of Bayeux. There were 5 men called Nicholas in Domesday Book.
Ncolaus Aurifaber was goldsmith to Earl Hugh of Chester. Nicolaus
Balistarius appeared in Domesday Devon. A tenand of William de Warenne
in Cambridgeshire, was Nicolaus De Kenet. A man called Nicolaus was
tenant of Abingdon Abbey, and another appears in Staffordshire and was
probably sheriff. There were ten people called John, 3 called Simon
and 8 called Peter in Domesday Book.


Perhaps he meant TRE?

Domesday Book is Domesday Book. If he meant during the time of Edward,
he would have said so, I imagine.

Jan Böhme

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 16 des 2007 23:05:03

On 16 Dec, 17:47, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote:

But there is no semantic difference between "pet name" and
"hypocoristic name", is there? The latter just sounds more fancy, and
suggests a little more that one knows what one is talking about,
that's all.

The semantic difference is that hypocoristic names are not nicknames. I was
mistaken in trying to perpetuate a distinction between nick forms and pet
forms for diminutives.

You're certain? Hypochoristic names are listed as a subcategory of
nicknames both in my old textbook of Swedish language history, and in
Wikipedia's entry on pet names.

We are dealing with the special circumstances of medieval England, where
there was distinct shortage of names.

I would imagine that most parts of Europe had considerably fewer names
than today. It was certainly the case in Scandinavia. Up to a hundred
years ago, the conservative farmers ín the area around Lake Siljan in
Darlecarlia in Sweden, still only used seven man's names, and about as
many women's names, too.

"Will was a distinct youth from Willot, Willot from Wilmot, Wilmot from
Wilkin, and Wilkin from Wilcock. There might be half a dozen Johns about the
farmstead, but it mattered little so long as one was called Jack, another
Jenning, a third Jenkin, a fourth Jackcock (now Jacox as a surname), a fifth
Brownjohn, and a sixth Micklejohn, or Littlejohn, or Properjohn (i.e. well
built or handsome)."

If this is a adequate description of English usage, then it is indeed
very different from the usage in other areas with similar shortage of
names. In many other parts of Europe, the different possible name
variants, though existing, were most emphatically not attached to
different individuals until much later, and the same person might
very well be referred to by several different forms of the name. To
take a German-Scandinavian example touched upon in a recent thread
here, the Molteke who was the father of Margareta Molteke who married
Kristiern Nilsson (Vasa), is referred to in contemporary documents
both as Johannes, Johan, Jan, Hans and Henneke - all very distinct
oral name forms, and not mere spelling variants. Obviously the scribes
- or possibly the man himself - thought that one was just as good as
the other.

Jan Böhme

Bryn

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Bryn » 16 des 2007 23:32:47

Needing no introduction "an" Usenet stalwart wrote:
On 16 déc, 19:06, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:30 am, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:



On 15 Dec, 05:09, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:

Obviously "Henri" (of which "Henry" is only a spelling variant)

Indeed - used as an alternative (albeit progressively more unusual) in
French to this day.

could be used *in English* in 1258.

Yes, but that doesn't prove anything as to whether the name so used in
an English text actually is an English name, rather than a French one.
I can give you lots of quotes in contemporary English texts containing
the name "Hu Yaobang". You surely wouldn't use this as a proof that
"Hu Yaobang" is an English name.

The problem here is that the French name Henri/Henry may well be
written exactly the same way as the English name "Henry". However,
_if_ John is correct that the original English pronunciation of
"Henry" is "Harry", then one can fairly assume that all occurrences of
"Henry" before the first appearance of "Harry" in an English text
actually refer to the French name.

Jan Böhme

That's the sort of argument that is non-falsifiable: any instance of
"Henry" in an English text can be deemed French, and only instances of
"Harry" will be found to be English!

Of course in the 13th century the distinction is meaningless; the name
is not an Anglo-Saxon one (although Saxon*ized* versions of it appear,
e.g. "Heanric", "Heinric", with reference to foreigners) and early
English instances of it are going to be "French", that is, used by
people influenced by the nomenclature habitual to the Norman-Angevin-
French ruling class -- which by the 13th century was pretty much
everybody in England.

Given what is known about the history and transmission of the name, I
see no reason to suppose that "Harry" is the "original pronunciation"
of "Henry" in English -- the "original pronunciation" would have been
the closest approximation of French "Henri" in an English mouth in the
11th century, when the name was introduced. I do not know enough
about medieval Norman-French to know exactly what that would have
been, but all the borrowings of French -en- into English that I think
of are pronounced with a lax e-sound, and are sharply distinct from -
an- (which frequently became labialized to -aun-). The Anglo-Saxon
"Heanric" types -- if they were at all propagated and not displaced by
new Norman-French pronunciations -- would also naturally have
developed into "Henry". That a pronunciation [hari] or [har:i]
eventually arose is certain, and it may even have been fairly early,
but it seems most probable that it's derived directly from a name
pronounced, more or less, [hEnri]. Whether the [a] of the name is
from the frequent change of English [Er] to [ar], or is influenced by
the French change of [E~] to [a~], I don't know, but the probability
of a change *within* English seems greater than the likelihood of
"Henri" being borrowed ab initio with the *pronunciation* [har:i].
The use of an initial [h] is a rather strong indication that the
spelling was being followed, unless [h] was conserved, or
reintroduced, in Norman-French.

When will somebody quote the word "nepos" as it should be quoted
correctly ("nepoti", may appear in the original text; but that is an
other business!)?

Pompeii ex filia nepos O:-)

--
Moon-daubed bush-clover--
ssh, in the next room
snoring prostitutes.

Bashõ

David

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av David » 17 des 2007 00:55:04

On Dec 16, 3:36 pm, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:

I do not know enough
about medieval Norman-French to know exactly what that would have
been, but all the borrowings of French -en- into English that I think
of are pronounced with a lax e-sound, and are sharply distinct from -
an- (which frequently became labialized to -aun-).

This would be a very surprising development, if it were not caused by
pronunciation influenced by reading (supposedly a good deal later than
the Conquest itself, then).

Surprising or not, it's the case: compare the following French
loanwords in English:
en > en: sense, torment, attend, consent, gentle, semblance, mention
an > an: van(guard), languish, language, chant, lance, dance,
champion, branch;
an > aun: (a)vaunt, daunt, launch; Blaunche (the name)
an > a:n: danger, chamber, change, strange

The only example I can think of, offhand, of medieval English -an- for
French -en- is fairly late: "band" (rarely) for "bend" (the heraldic
charge); but this form is probably influenced by the independent
English word "band".

It seems evident that, whatever was going on on the continent, in
Anglo-French "en" and "an" were kept distinct. The extant Chanson de
Roland probably took its form a bit later than the Norman Conquest,
and I doubt we can infer much about the conquering Normans'
pronunciation from it. If Anglo-French were a bit more conservative
than continental French in certain respects, that would not be at all
surprising.

Jan Böhme

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 17 des 2007 01:00:04

On 16 Dec, 22:56, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

"Before many generations had passed, Bartholomew, Simon, Peter,
Philip, Thomas, Nicholas, John and Elias, had engrossed a third of
the male population; yet the Domesday Book has no Philip, no Thomas,
only one Nicholas, and but a sprinkling of Johns. It was not long
before Jack and Jill took the place of Godric and Godgivu as
representative of the English sexes, yet Jack was from the Bible,
and Jill from the saintly Calendar." Charles W. Bardsley, Curiosities of
Puritan Nomenclture, p.2.

Well, there was one Thomas. He was Archbishop of York, also known as
Thomas of Bayeux. There were 5 men called Nicholas in Domesday Book.
Ncolaus Aurifaber was goldsmith to Earl Hugh of Chester. Nicolaus
Balistarius appeared in Domesday Devon. A tenand of William de Warenne
in Cambridgeshire, was Nicolaus De Kenet. A man called Nicolaus was
tenant of Abingdon Abbey, and another appears in Staffordshire and was
probably sheriff. There were ten people called John, 3 called Simon
and 8 called Peter in Domesday Book.

Perhaps he meant TRE?

Hrmm. I'd say that it rather means that the author is a bit cavalier
with details when he doesn't think they are overly important. The
message he wants to convey still seems reasonably fine, but the
details are not as exact as they sound, and indeed somewhat
exaggerated.

Some caution might thus be warranted also for other detailed
information in the same book. I'd even go as far as to say that the
factual information of _any_ book whose title starts with "The
Curiosities of..." should at least be considered to be taken with a
wee pinch of salt.

Jan Böhme

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 17 des 2007 01:17:03

Jan Böhme wrote:
On 16 Dec, 22:56, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

"Before many generations had passed, Bartholomew, Simon, Peter,
Philip, Thomas, Nicholas, John and Elias, had engrossed a third of
the male population; yet the Domesday Book has no Philip, no
Thomas, only one Nicholas, and but a sprinkling of Johns. It was
not long
before Jack and Jill took the place of Godric and Godgivu as
representative of the English sexes, yet Jack was from the Bible,
and Jill from the saintly Calendar." Charles W. Bardsley,
Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclture, p.2.

Well, there was one Thomas. He was Archbishop of York, also known as
Thomas of Bayeux. There were 5 men called Nicholas in Domesday Book.
Ncolaus Aurifaber was goldsmith to Earl Hugh of Chester. Nicolaus
Balistarius appeared in Domesday Devon. A tenand of William de
Warenne in Cambridgeshire, was Nicolaus De Kenet. A man called
Nicolaus was tenant of Abingdon Abbey, and another appears in
Staffordshire and was probably sheriff. There were ten people
called John, 3 called Simon and 8 called Peter in Domesday Book.

Perhaps he meant TRE?

Hrmm. I'd say that it rather means that the author is a bit cavalier
with details when he doesn't think they are overly important. The
message he wants to convey still seems reasonably fine, but the
details are not as exact as they sound, and indeed somewhat
exaggerated.

Some caution might thus be warranted also for other detailed
information in the same book. I'd even go as far as to say that the
factual information of _any_ book whose title starts with "The
Curiosities of..." should at least be considered to be taken with a
wee pinch of salt.

Not "The Curiosities" - "Curiosities". It's a classic in the field.
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av John Briggs » 17 des 2007 01:30:29

Jan Böhme wrote:
On 16 Dec, 17:47, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote:

But there is no semantic difference between "pet name" and
"hypocoristic name", is there? The latter just sounds more fancy,
and suggests a little more that one knows what one is talking about,
that's all.

The semantic difference is that hypocoristic names are not
nicknames. I was mistaken in trying to perpetuate a distinction
between nick forms and pet forms for diminutives.

You're certain? Hypochoristic names are listed as a subcategory of
nicknames both in my old textbook of Swedish language history, and in
Wikipedia's entry on pet names.

It rather looks as if the Wikipedia entries on "hypocoristic" and "nickname"
have been written by two different people (the former does not refer to the
latter.)


I am relying on:

A. Room, An alphabetical guide to the language of name studies (Scarecrow
Press, 1996)

hypocoristic name. A "pet" or affectionate form of a forename or surname,
frequently occurring as a diminutive.

nickname. An unofficial name given to a person, place, or object in addition
to the original name.
--
John Briggs

Jan Böhme

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 17 des 2007 14:30:04

On 17 Dec, 00:53, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:36 pm, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:

I do not know enough
about medieval Norman-French to know exactly what that would have
been, but all the borrowings of French -en- into English that I think
of are pronounced with a lax e-sound, and are sharply distinct from -
an- (which frequently became labialized to -aun-).

This would be a very surprising development, if it were not caused by
pronunciation influenced by reading (supposedly a good deal later than
the Conquest itself, then).

Surprising or not, it's the case: compare the following French
loanwords in English:
en > en: sense, torment, attend, consent, gentle, semblance, mention
an > an: van(guard), languish, language, chant, lance, dance,
champion, branch;
an > aun: (a)vaunt, daunt, launch; Blaunche (the name)
an > a:n: danger, chamber, change, strange

Please again note my conditional - if not caused directly by the
spelling.
Otherwise, it's not surprising at all.

Please also note that not all Medieval French loan words in English
came with the Normans in 1066 - some arrived later. I can't say for
certain without my literature whether any such words are included in
your list of /en/ words above, but if the rule is so absolute that it
comprises also such words, then it obviously has nothing to do with
pronunciation of the nasal. French loan words from the 13th century
and onwards mostly came from Francien - the very dialect where the
coalescence is attested at least in the late eleventh century.

It seems evident that, whatever was going on on the continent, in
Anglo-French "en" and "an" were kept distinct.

This is not quite as evident as you seem to imagine. Or do you really
suggest, not only that "en" and "an" were kept distinct, but also that
the digraph "en" didn't form a nasal in Anglo-Norman? As I wrote, most
scholars agree that already the Kassel Glossary bears witness of
nasalization, and Cantilène de Sainte Eulalie - rather exactly datable
to A.D. 880-881 - shows reasonably clear evidence of nasalization of
both a and e. This poem is, in addition, written in a Picard dialect,
much closer, geographically and linguistically to the dialect of
Normandy than Francien.

Thus, it would require a paradigm shift in Romance language history to
accept that the /n/ in "Henry", and the rest of your examples, has
come into English in any other way than from the writing. And if the /
n/ came from the writing, what's so hard about believing that the /e/
did, too?

The extant Chanson de
Roland probably took its form a bit later than the Norman Conquest,
and I doubt we can infer much about the conquering Normans'
pronunciation from it. If Anglo-French were a bit more conservative
than continental French in certain respects, that would not be at all
surprising.

The dating of the Chanson de Roland is controversial, but the majority
opinion now is that it was written towards the end of the 11 century,
but based on an earlier text. It certainly doesn't _prove_ that "an"
and "en" had coalesced in Norman by 1066, I'm the first to admit.
OTOH, the fact that it is based on an earlier text makes it more
likely to be conservative. Note also, that the date establishes a
terminus _ante_ quem, at least for Ile-de-France, and that there are
no datable French texts from earlier in the eleventh century, nor from
the tenth. The development might thus be considerably earlier than
late eleventh century. Also note that the co-evolution of Anglo-Norman
and mainland Norman didn't stop dead in 1066. Anglo-Norman would
certainly have been influenced by linguistic developments on the
Norman mainland in the eleventh century, and in all likelihood also in
the twelfth.

But the main problem with the hypothesis that the retained /e/ in the
digraph "en" in English words of French origin reflects Anglo-Norman
pronunciation at the time of the borrowing, is that the /n/, to the
best of our knowledge, doesn't.

Thus, the hypothesis needs either to separate presumptions where the
alternative hypothesis only has one, or needs to make a presumption
about the development of nasals in French which is contradicted by
other evidence.

Jan Böhme

David

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av David » 17 des 2007 14:50:05

On Dec 16, 3:36 pm, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:

As I wrote above, the change from [E~] to [a~] is early, and attested
already in the Chanson de Roland. It is thus likely that the French
name already was pronounced [ha~'ri] when it came to England.

If that were true, then one ought to find such transcriptions as
"Hanri" or "Hanry" or even "Haunry" in some early English texts. As
far as I can tell, however, these types are rare to the point of
nonexistence; whereas "Herri" and "Herry" are abundantly attested
from at least the beginning of the 15th century -- with "Harri" and
"Harry" being found most commonly in the later 15th and 16th
centuries, tending to supersede "Henry" entirely.

I would conjecture - subject to amendment based on additional evidence
- that the sequence was Henry -> Herry -> Harry, with er > ar by the
same changes that gave clerk -> "clark" and sergeant -> "sargeant" and
formerly merchant -> "marchant" (not to mention the name of the letter
R < "er").

I can't find examples of "Herri/y" or "Harri/y" earlier than 1400
(though earlier examples, to the 12th c. of "Henri/y" are abundant -
and for persons other than the kings of that name) but I expect there
are a few.

David

Re: When nepos/nepoti/nepotis means kinsman

Legg inn av David » 17 des 2007 16:35:05

On Dec 17, 7:26 am, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:
On 17 Dec, 00:53, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:36 pm, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:

I do not know enough
about medieval Norman-French to know exactly what that would have
been, but all the borrowings of French -en- into English that I think
of are pronounced with a lax e-sound, and are sharply distinct from -
an- (which frequently became labialized to -aun-).

This would be a very surprising development, if it were not caused by
pronunciation influenced by reading (supposedly a good deal later than
the Conquest itself, then).

Surprising or not, it's the case: compare the following French
loanwords in English:
en > en: sense, torment, attend, consent, gentle, semblance, mention
an > an: van(guard), languish, language, chant, lance, dance,
champion, branch;
an > aun: (a)vaunt, daunt, launch; Blaunche (the name)
an > a:n: danger, chamber, change, strange

Please again note my conditional - if not caused directly by the
spelling.
Otherwise, it's not surprising at all.

Appeals to spelling with reference to the pronunciation of (presumably
spoken!) loanwords in a marginally literate culture are a bit
questionable, especially when -- as noted -- the English spelling
diverges from the French. English scribes had no qualms about
diverging from French spelling in order to better represent the sound
of the _English_ words, within the context of what they apprehended
about the nature of their orthographic system(s).

Please also note that not all Medieval French loan words in English
came with the Normans in 1066 - some arrived later. I can't say for
certain without my literature whether any such words are included in
your list of /en/ words above, but if the rule is so absolute that it
comprises also such words, then it obviously has nothing to do with
pronunciation of the nasal. French loan words from the 13th century
and onwards mostly came from Francien - the very dialect where the
coalescence is attested at least in the late eleventh century.

Anglo-French (or so-called Anglo-Norman) remained a distinct dialect
of French down to the early 15th century, and so is likely to have
influenced even later borrowings from the Île-de-France. But the main
issue, as I see it, is not the precise pronunciation of the words as
they were heard, or the exact mechanism (hearing or reading) by which
words were transmitted, but simply the results. If it's established
that French "en" (regardless of its pronunciation) was *regularly*
represented in English by the spelling "en", pronounced [En], then we
have the following options:

(1) Accept that [hEnri] is a regular reflex of French Henri, and that
(1a) "Herry", "Harry" and their variants were therefore later
derivations of [hEnri].
(2) Suppose that there was something unusual, compared to all other
English words borrowed from French, about the transmission of the name
Henri which would allow
(2a) "Harry" to be an original adaptation of whatever the original
French pronunciation was
(2b) "Henry" to be a later "spelling pronunciation" of the name

Option (2) is quite a bit less parsimonious, as it requires there to
be two different processes of adapting French to English: one for the
general vocabulary, one for proper names -- or perhaps just for the
name Henri.

It seems evident that, whatever was going on on the continent, in
Anglo-French "en" and "an" were kept distinct.

This is not quite as evident as you seem to imagine. Or do you really
suggest, not only that "en" and "an" were kept distinct, but also that
the digraph "en" didn't form a nasal in Anglo-Norman? As I wrote, most
scholars agree that already the Kassel Glossary bears witness of
nasalization, and Cantilène de Sainte Eulalie - rather exactly datable
to A.D. 880-881 - shows reasonably clear evidence of nasalization of
both a and e.

Nasalization of vowels before an (original) nasal consonant is a
different matter from the lowering of e > a. I was quite obviously
referring to the latter, and I see no reason to change my statement as
I made it: "in Anglo-French "en" and "an" were kept distinct".

In looking through "The Anglo-Norman Dictionary", which records a
large number of spelling variants of words in Anglo-French, I find
that examples of -an- for -en- (which should be expected at least
sometimes, if the pronunciations had merged) are vanishingly rare: so
for "rente" (also rend, rent, rennt, rende) we never have "rante" or
any form with -an-; for "attendre" we have atendre, entendre,
atteindre, attender but again no form with -an-; sentence has
"sentens, sentense, centenz, centence" but not *santence; despence has
despence, despens, depense, dispense, even despeinse; but not
*despance. It's remarkable that these scribes vary so freely between
orthographic representations of the same or similar sounds (s and
c(e), final d and t, etc.), but nearly always keep -an- and -en-
separate -- unless, that is, they were already distinguishing the two
in pronunciation.

It's also worth noting that original -an- words almost always have
variant forms in -aun-, which the -en- words never do: dance, danse,
daunce, daunse; danger, dangier, daungier; creance, creaunce; avant,
avaunt; blanc, blanch, blaunch, blank, blaunk.

The degree to which nasal *consonants* had been dropped in French in
the environment V_C (the relevant question, as the nasalization of the
*vowel* was originally phonemic and not directly represented) is of
questionable importance, as the data shows that the English generally
heard and transcribed a nasal vowel + C as VnC or VmC and restored the
consonant (if it wasn't originally there) in the English
pronunciation. There may be testimony for the English hearing
something a little different in the nasal vowels (particularly a~, o~)
from their native sequences of aNC, oNC, from certain spellings with
"un" -- e.g. avaunt < avant, chaunt < chanter, mount < mont, count <
conter (=compter) -- spellings which also exist in Anglo-French. But
that's precisely what we don't see in variants of Henry: no "Haunry"
or "Haurry".

Conclusion: the English wrote "Henri/y", and read [hEnri]. That this
was merely a spelling pronunciation I rather doubt; that they
initially *heard* [hE~ri] I'm willing to grant, but if they had heard
[ha~ri] they would surely have produced far more early spellings of
the name with an "a". Indeed, such spellings would have been desirable
to *keep* readers from pronouncing [hEn], if that were indeed a
solOEcism.

But the main problem with the hypothesis that the retained /e/ in the
digraph "en" in English words of French origin reflects Anglo-Norman
pronunciation at the time of the borrowing, is that the /n/, to the
best of our knowledge, doesn't.

I can't say that this makes any sense. The possibility that a graphic
"n" may represent vowel nasalization in one interpretation of
orthography, and may represent a consonantal nasalization in another,
has no direct bearing on the question of whether "en" and "an" were
merged; it's quite possible for the variant of French in question to
have had both [e~] and [a~]! In any case there is very direct
evidence, from Anglo-French itself, for -en- and -an- being treated
very differently, for which the best explanation is that they were
pronounced differently. I'd rather not be dogmatic about how they
were pronounced, but the point is (1), that they were distinct, and
(2) that their reflexes in English were *still* distinct -- though
doubtless not pronounced exactly the same way as they were in that
variety of French.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»