[ANSTHRLD] Damasca Gisele de Bier Return

[tmcd at jump.net]

"doug bell" <magnus77840 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Pietari returned her name in August LoAR and flatly
> declared that Damasca came into use in the 19th century.

You are dead WRONG (even leaving aside the fact that it was Mari in
August):

    The given name Damasca was documented as a feminine form of
    Damasco from De Felice, Dizionario dei nomi Italiani (p. 121,
    s.n. Damasco).  However, De Felice says that the masculine given
    name Damasco was derived from Damascus, the name of the Syrian
    capital, and probably came into use in the late 19th century.
    Therefore, barring further documentation neither Damasco nor
    Damasca is registerable.

Id est, she says what *De Felice* wrote, that that was the only
documentation provided, that she had no other to hand -- *and she left
open the door to other evidence being found*, such as yours.

(By the way, "barring" is the preposition, not a gerund -- "excluding
by exception : EXCEPTING" -- so it means "Therefore, excepting if
further documentation is found, neither ...")

> the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire illustrates its use in
> Classical and early Dark Ages times.  Whether this is enough to get
> the name registered I don't know.

I don't see why it wouldn't be.  You would get a weirdness for
temporal disparity with the rest of the name, but the return mentioned
no other weirdness.  Mind you, there's still no evidence presented
that it's authentic -- that the name survived into the time of "Gisele
de Bier" -- and I would encourage authentic names.  Has she been
presented with the alternatives suggested ("Since Bier is a valid
English form (Reaney and Wilson s.n. Byars), an alternative would have
been to chage the given name to either the French Damizella (dated to
the 12th C, Bourin and Chareille) or the English Damisona (dated to
1290, Withycombe p. xli)"), to see if she might prefer those to
"Damasca", or considers them just as good names?

"All appeals must be supported by new documentation or other proof
that the original submission was returned in error or by compelling
evidence that the submission was not properly considered at the time
of return.".  This sounds like "new documentation", so it can be an
appeal.  Calling it a resub would work just as well.

> I didn't have this rather heavy tome on Roman names when the name
> was at kingdom.
> Magnus
> who finds mistakes by the heralds very annoying for submittors.

You expected Pelican to be clairvoyant enough to forsee your further
research, or to have the perfect library?  I'm sorry, but you should
know by now that heralds can rule only using the evidence provided and
that they can find.

Daniel de Lincolia, who finds unjustified grief to heralds to be very
annoying
--
Tim McDaniel is tmcd at jump.net; if that fail,
    tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka.Korpela at hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)