[ANSTHRLD] Name Documentation Questions

Kathri at aol.com Kathri at aol.com
Wed Aug 15 05:45:03 PDT 2001


--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 8/14/2001 4:46:40 PM Central Daylight Time,
anezka at elfsea.net writes:

>>
I have seen people documenting their given name using Reaney and Wilson.
>>

Some people try this when it won't work, but there are ways to do it.
- For a patronymic, sometimes R&W give examples of the given name that is the
source, e. g. under Hereward there is "Herewardus de Barneby 1219 AssY" which
documents "Herewardus" as a given.
- Sometimes you can interpolate.  The above example would be accepted as
documentation of "Hereward" - the local form - as a given name, since we know
that by 1219 clerks were tacking "us" onto many masculine names to make them
look like Latin.
- Some names are dated as a given, e.g. under Hereford the example "Ilbert de
Hertford 1086 DB" dates "Ilbert" to 1086 just as firmly as "de Hertford."
There's at least one index of given names in R&W which helps you find these
names.

>>
Secondly (again using R&W since that's what I've got in front of me), I
have seen people take a variant spelling that is in the header and try
to register it although that spelling has no dates associated with it in
the listing. 
>>

Sometimes you can justify the name in the header.  For example, under
"Hermitage, Armatage, Armetys, Armitage, Armytage"" we see "Hugh del
Hermytage 1296" and "John de Armitage 1423" so we could probably justify
"Armytage" since we can prove that the middle syllable was spelled both
"-my-" and "-mi-" even though there's no dated example of "Armytage."  (And
because we know about the i/y shift in English during this time.)

Sometimes you can justify an unlisted varient.  For example, under "Herring"
we see "Harang" in 1210, "Haring" in 1275, and "Hering" in 1279.  So "Herang"
would probably be accepted, even though we don't have a dated example,
because we can prove that both syllables were spelled both ways and that they
were switched around.

BUT -- you can't just assume that any spelling varient is acceptable.  You
have to show why the varient should be accepted (like the examples above), or
it has to be a widely-known and accepted shift.  For example, the English
switched between "C" and "K" quite frequently in the 1500's.  (If you believe
all those "Katherine"s and "Catherine"s were different people, Henry VIII had
more than 8 wives!  And was truly a bigamist!)  However, this does not
justify switching C to K in a 1500's Spanish name -- for one thing, Spanish
doesn't use "K" except in borrowed words, and tends to switch to "C" in
those.

So you have to be careful.  And you're right.  Some people aren't careful.

If you don't know, ask for help - this is a good forum.  It is truly amazing
what some name researchers can accomplish, and most of them will be glad to
teach you how to do it.

Auntie Kathri
(climbing down from her soapbox after reminding you to be careful out there)



More information about the Heralds mailing list