Re: Meaning of Matertera: Fitz William, Gant, and Scrope families - Revised Post
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Since posting recently regarding the identification of the parentage of
the Botetourt family ancestress, Margaret, wife of Otes Fitz William, I
was contacted offlist by a newsgroup member who informed me that
Katherine Keats-Rohan in her book, Domesday Descendants, pp. 471-472,
has identified Margaret, wife of Otes Fitz William, not as a daughter
of Robert Fitz Harding (as indicated by her own charter), but rather as
the daughter of Walter de Gant, lord of Folkingham, Lincolnshire. I
assume Keats-Rohan made this assignment of Margaret as Walter de Gant's
daughter based on third charter cited in my post. In this charter,
Maurice de Gant referred to Margaret, widow of Otes Fitz William, as
his "matertera." Given Keats-Rohan's identification, it appears she
interpreted the word "matertera" to mean maternal aunt as in classical
Latin. We know from other records that Maurice de Gant's mother was a
daughter of Walter de Gant; ergo Margaret, widow of Otes Fitz William,
would also have to be a daughter of Walter de Gant, assuming matertera
meant "maternal aunt." However, when this charter is taken in context
of the other two charters I cited from the same cartulary, Margaret
wife of Otes Fitzn William can only have been Maurice de Gant's
paternal aunt, being the sister of his father, Robert Fitz Robert Fitz
Harding.
If correct, then it appears the word matertera must have undergone a
similar transition in meaning as did the Latin word, "avunculus." In
classical Latin "avunculus" meant maternal uncle, but in medieval
England it could refer to either paternal or maternal uncle. An
example of avunculus referring to a paternal uncle in medieval England
is found in a final agreement dated 1195-1196 between Henry de Heland
and Robert de Clivecher, huntsman, made in the court of Roger de Lacy,
Constable of Chester, a brief abstract of which document is provided
below.
"Hec est finalis concordia facta in curia domini Rogeri de Laci,
constabularii Cestrie, anno vii regni Ricardi Anglie, apud Gliderhou,
inter Henricum de Helande et Robertum de Clivecher venatorem, coram
domino Rogero de Laci, constabulario Cestrie, et fratre Roberto filio
Ricardi, avunculo domino R[ogeri] de Laci, et Eustachio fratre suo ...
de tribus bovatis terre in Clivecher cum petinentiis suis quas Robertus
venator tenet .." [Reference: William Farrer, ed. Early Yorkshire
CHarters, 3 (1916): 211-212].
We see above that "brother Robert Fitz Richard" is referred to in the
above document as uncle ["avunculo"] of Roger de Lacy, Constable of
Chester.
We know from various Lacy family pedigrees that Roger de Lacy's
paternal uncle was Robert Fitz Richard, Prior of the Hospital of
Jerusalem [see, for example, William Farrer. ed., Early Yorkshire
Charters, 3 (1916): 199 (pedigree of Lacy family)].
Curiously, I've elsewhere encountered the word "matertera" used in the
same period by another member of the Gant family. The charter is that
of Alice de Gant, Countess of Northampton, and is dated 1184-1185. In
her charter, Alice confirms to Robert le Scrope of Barton(-upon-Humber)
the land which Robert's ancestors held of her ancestors in Barton. She
identifies Robert le Scrope as "filio Ricardi Scrop et filio Agnetis
matertere mee" [that is, son of Richard le Scrope and son of Agnes my
aunt] [Reference: William Ferrer, ed., Early Yorkshire Charters, 2
(1915): 492-493].
As with Keats-Rohan, Mr. Farrer appears to have adopted the position
that "matertera" should be strictly translated as maternal aunt. He
says on pg. 490: "It will be seen from a charter given below that the
countess Aliz de Gant, daughter of Gilbert de Gant, gave to Robert
Scrop of Barton, son of Richard Scrop and Agnes, the grantor's maternal
aunt, land which his ancestors had held of her ancestors and of her in
Barton." If correct, then Robert le Scrope would necessarily be the
nephew of Alice de Gant's mother, Rohese, who is known from the Rufford
chartulary to have been the sister of Roger, Earl of Clare [see Farrer,
ibid., pg. 434]. If so, this would make Robert le Scrope related to
the most distinguished baronial family in Anglo-Norman England; yet the
Scrope family in this time period is found associated in records with
the Gant family, and not at all with the Clare family. Not only that,
but the station of the Scrope family in this period appears to have
been far below that of the illustrious Clare family. An intermarriage
between the two families would be quite unlikely.
As such, I submit that Robert le Scrope's mother, Agnes, was the sister
not of Alice de Gant's mother, but rather of her father, Gilbert de
Gant, Earl of Lincoln (died 1156). This would place Robert le Scrope's
mother,
Agnes, as a daughter of Walter de Gant, of Folkingham, Lincolnshire
(died 1139), by his wife, Maud of Brittany. In effect, Walter de Gant
would lose one daughter, Margaret (wife of Otes Fitz William}, but gain
another, Agnes (wife of Richard le Scrope).
For further information on the family and descendants of Robert le
Scrope, please see Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 531-532 (sub Scrope).
Robert le Scrope may be the Robert le Scrope of Barton who died in the
Holy Land in 1190. There is also supposed to be an article on the
Scrope family by Clay in Transactions of the Bristol & Gloucestershire
Arch. Soc., vol. 45, pp. 129, et seq., which article I have not seen.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
< In 1990 F.N. Craig published an excellent article entitled "Descent
< from a Domesday Goldsmith," in which he traced the extended male line
< ancestry of Maud Fitz Thomas, wife of John Botetourt, Knt., 1st Lord
< Botetourt, back to one Otes the Goldsmith, a Domesday tenant at
< Gestingthorpe, Essex [Reference: The American Genealogist, 65 (1990):
< 24-32]. Checking various online genealogical databases, it appears
< that Mr. Craig's article has been all but ignored.
< For simplicity, the descent will be summarized below as follows:
< 1. Otes the Goldsmith, Domesday tenant in 1086; he held the office of
< the royal mint as king's goldsmith. He held lands at Gestingthorpe,
< Essex, Lisson Green (in Marylebone), Middlesex, and Hawstead,
Suffolk.
< He married (1st) Leofgifu; (2nd) Edeva.
< 2. Otes Fitz Otes, of Benfleet, Childerditch, and Lisson Green, son
and
< heir by his father's 1st wife, succeeded his father at the mint in
< 1101. In 1108 the king granted him his land of Benfleet with
< Childerditch in Essex.
< 3. William Fitz Otes, of Benfleet, Childerditch, Lisson Green, son
and
< heir. In 1116-27 the king confirmed to William Fitz Otes the
goldsmith
< the "ministerium cuneorum" (the dies) which his father, Otes, used to
< render. He occurs 1121-1178. He married Gille.
< 4. Otes Fitz William, of Essex, Sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire,
< 1181-82, son and heir. He died about 1194. He married Margery, who
< survived him. She was holding one fee in Essex of the honor of
< Gloucester (Red Book, pg. 610). She was living in 1207.
< 5. William Fitz Otes, son and heir, of Gestingthorpe and Belchamp,
< Essex, and Lisson Green, Middlesex. He married Maud de Dive,
daughter
< of William de Dive, by Maud de Waterville. He was living about 1213,
< and died before 1217/18. His widow, Maud, married (2nd) Richard
Fitz
< Hugh.
< 6. Otes Fitz William, of Belchamp, Gestingthorpe, and Gosfeud, Essex,
< and Lisson Green, Middlesex, son and heir, of age in or before 1219.
< The name of his wife is not known. He died in 1257.
< 7. Thomas Fitz Otes, Knt., of Belchamp, Gestingthorpe, and Gosfeud,
< Essex, 2nd son, born about 1231 (aged 30 in 1261). He married
Beatrice
< Beauchamp, daughter of William de Beauchamp, by Ida, daughter of
< William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury. In 1265 he was given the scrap
< iron from the broken dies, as his father and ancestors had had. He
< died in 1274. His widow, Beatrice, married William de Munchensy.
< 8. Maud Fitz Thomas, born about 1271 (aged 11 in 1282). She married
< John Botetourt, Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt. In 1329 she sold the
office
< of graver and worker of the dies in the Tower of London and city of
< Canterbury to her son-in-law, William le Latimer.
< To date no one to my knowledge has identified Margery, wife of Otes
< Fitz William (Gen. 4 above). However, charter evidence has survived
< which conclusively proves that she was the daughter of Robert Fitz
< Harding (died 1171), merchant of Bristol, male line ancestor of the
< baronial Berkeley family [see Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 124-125
(sub
< Berkeley)]. The three charters below are taken from the published
< cartulary of St. Mary Clerkenwell. The first charter is a grant
dated
< ?1190/1206, in which Margaret specifically states she was the
daughter
< of Robert Fitz Harding [Note: The names Margaret and Margery were
fully
< interchangeable in this time period]. The second is a charter dated
c.
< 1221/2, by Otes Fitz William (Gen. 6 above) who confirms the earlier
< grant of Margaret his grandmother ["aue mee"]. The third charter
dated
< 1213/19 is a grant by Maurice de Gant, in which he refers to his aunt
< ["matertera mea'], Margaret, formerly wife of Otes Fitz William.
This
< charter is important as Maurice de Gant's father, Robert Fitz Robert,
< is known to have been a younger son of Robert Fitz Harding, male line
< ancestor of the Berkeley family [see John Smyth, Lives of the
< Berkeleys, 1 (1883): 20, 50-52, 65]. The third charter is also of
< great historic interest, as it is witnessed by three individuals,
< Robert Fitz Walter, Saier de Quincy, and Henry de Bohun, all of whom
< were Magna Carta barons.
< For details of specific descents from Maud Fitz Thomas down to the
< individual colonial immigrants, please see my book, Plantagenet
< Ancestry (2004). Please contact me privately regarding ordering
< information for the book.
< Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt lake City, Utah
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> Charter No. 1:
> "166. Margaret daughter of Robert son of Harding gives the land of
> Baldwin de Nubelee and Edith his wife at North Nibley, Gloucestershire
> for a pittance at Whitsun.
> Date: ?1190/April 1206 (between no. 6 and the death of Osbert son of
> Heruicus; see S.H.A. Hervey, Dictionary of All Herveys of all classes,
> callings, counties and spellings, from 1040 to 1500 (Suffolk Green
> Books, xx), vol. iii, pp. 12-16 (no. 1206) and vol. iv, pp. 204-205
> (no. 2348)).
> MS.: Cartulary, fos. 45r.-45v.
> DE DONO MARGARETE QUE FUIT FILIA ROBERTI FILII HARDING' DE NUBESLEE.
> Vniuersis Sancte matris ecclesie filiis ad quos presens scriptum
> peruenerit Margareta que fuit filia Roberti filii Harding' salutem.
> In vniuersitatis vestre noticiam volo peruenire me diuine pietatis
> intuitu dedisse et concessisse et hac presenti carta mea confirmasse
> deo et beate Marie de Clerkenwell' et sanctimonialibus ibidem deo
> seruientibus pro salute anime mee et anime viri mei et heredum meorum
> et antecessorum meorum in puram et perpetuam elemosinam et quietam ab
> omni seruicio seculari totam terram quam Baldewinus de Nubelee et
> Editha vxor eius tenuerunt de me in Nubilee cum omnibus pertinenciis
> suis sine vllo retinemento in pitanciam quolibet anno predictis
> sanctimonialibus in die pentecostes tenendam ipsis in perpetuum de me
> et heredibus meis. Quare volo quod predicte sanctimoniales totam
> predictam terram habeant teneant et possideant in puram et perpetuam
> elemosinam in perpetuum possidendam liberam et quietam ab omni
> exaccione que super terram poterit contingere. Et ego Margareta et
> heredes mei warrantizabimus totam predictam terram predictis
> sanctimonialibus contra omnes homines et feminas. Hanc donacionem feci
> eis in viduitate mea de meo libero patrimonio. Et quia volo quod
> stabilis sit et inconcussa eam sigilla mei apposicione roboraui. Hiis
> testibus. Osberto filio Heruei. Willelmo de Warenn'. Hugone
> Peuerel." [Reference: W.O. Hassall, Cartulary of St. Mary Clekenwell
> (Camden 3rd ser. 71) (1949): 104-105].
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> Charter No. 2:
> "167. Otto son of William confirms the above grant of Margaret his
> grandmother.
> Date: c. 1221/2 (the Prioress brought a plea of assize of novel
> disseizin against Otto touching a tenement in Nibley: Rolls of the
> Justices in Eyre, 1221-2 [Selden Soc., lix. 1940], nos. 78 and 211, pp.
> 24, 85-86.
> MS.: Cartulary, fo. 45v.
> DE CONFIRMATIONE OTHONIS FILII WILLELMI.
> Omnibus Sancte matris ecclesie filiis ad quos presens scriptum
> peruenerit Otho filius Willelmi salutem. Nouerit Vniuersitas vestra me
> ratam habere et hac presenti carta mea confirmasse donacionem and
> concedessionem quam Margareta que fuit filia Roberti filii Harding
> fecit deo et ecclesie beate Marie de Clerkenwell' et santimonialibus
> ibidem deo seruientibus de tota terra cum pertinentiis quam Baldewynus
> de Nubelee et Edith vxor eius tenuerunt de eadem Margareta in eadem
> villa habendam et tenendam predictis sanctimonialibus et earum
> successoribus in puram et perpetuam elemosinam pro salute anime mee et
> antecessorum meorum ita libere et quiete sicut carta Margarete aue mee
> testatur. Hanc autem predictam terram integre cum omnibus petinentiis
> suis ego dictus Otho filius Willelmi et heredes mei warantizabimus
> predictis sanctimonialibus et earum successoribus contra omnes homines
> et feminas in perpetuum. Et vt hec mea concessio et warantisio
> perpetue firmitatis robur obtineant hanc presentem cartam sigilli meo
> munimine roboraui. Hiis testibus. Dominus Henrico de Berkelay.
> Henrico de Wantham. Stephano de Stranda. Petro de Eulee."
> [Reference: W.O. Hassall, Cartulary of St. Mary Clekenwell (Camden 3rd
> ser. 71) (1949): 105-106].
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> Charter No. 3:
> "38. Grant by Maurice de Gant of all the rent in Dursley,
> Gloucestershire which he bought from Margaret wife of Otes Fitz William
> excepting his wood for which a compensation is to be paid elsewhere.
> Date: 1213/19 (Maurice de Gant had royal license to marry Maud, only
> child of Henry d'Oilly, in 1213. See Foss, Judges of England, ii. 345,
> and Rotuli de Finibus, 469. Saer de Quincy died in 1219).
> MS.: Cartulary, fo. 16v.
> Printed: Monasticon, iv. 84.
> Cited: Sir Henry Barkly in Bristol and Glouc. Arch. Soc. Trans., xi.
> 232-233.
> DE DONO MAURICII DE GANT DE DERESLEA.
> Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos presens scriptum peruenerit Mauricius
> de Gant salutem. Noueritis me pro salute anime mee et Matildis vxoris
> mee et omnium antecessorum et successorum meorum dedisse et confirmasse
> et hac presenti carta mea confirmasse deo et Beate Marie et
> sanctimonialibus de Clerekenw'll' ibidem deo seruientibus in puram et
> perpetuam elemosinam totum redditum meum quem habui in manerio de
> Derslea videlicet quem emi de Margareta matertera mea que fuit vxor
> Othonis filii Willelmi, retento tamen in manu mea bosco meo quem ibidem
> habeo et eiusdem custodia: ita scilicet quod in certo redditu alibi in
> terris meis prefatum redditum quantum ad custodiam prefati bosci
> pertinet prescriptis sanctimonialibus plenarie perficiam. Et ego
> Mauricius et heredes mei warrantizare debemus predictum redditum dictis
> monialibus contra omnes homines et feminas. Vt autem hec mea donatio et
> concessio firma et inconcussa permaneat presens scriptum sigilli mei
> appositione roboraui. Hiis testibus. Roberto filio Walteri. Saero de
> Quinci comite Winton'. Henrico de Boun." [Reference: W.O. Hassall,
> Cartulary of St. Mary Clekenwell (Camden 3rd ser. 71) (1949): 28-29].
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As a followup to my original post, I've found the following reference
to "matertera" in VCH Worcester, 2 (1971): 148-151:
"The church of St. Nicholas of Droitwich was granted to the church of
Fontevrault by Matthew count of Boulogne. His daughter Ida, the
countess of Boulogne, confirmed the gift of the chapel together with
the land forming its endowment at the petition of M. abbess of
Fontevrault, whom the countess styles karissima matertera mia." END OF
QUOTE.
Research indicates that Mathilde, Abbess of Fontevrault, was the
paternal aunt of Countess Ida of Boulogne, being the daughter of
Thierry of Alsace, Count of Flanders (died 1168). As such, is is clear
that matertera could in fact be used in this period to refer to a
paternal aunt.
If anyone knows of other examples of matertera meaning "paternal aunt,"
I would appreciate hearing from them here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Please find below yet another example of the use of matertera, this one
from a French charter dated 1248. In the charter, Bouchard de Marly
mentions his wife, Agnes, and confirms the gifts of Mabel his aunt
[matertera], which gifts were made with the assent of Matthieu de Marly
his uncle [patrui], husband of the said Mabel.
Cartulaire de l'abbeye de Porrois
Date: July 1248. Acte CCXLIX.
Bouchard de Marly confirme à Porrois tous les biens que l'abbaye
possède dans son fief.
Omnibus presentes litteras inspecturis, Bucherdus Malliaci dominus,
salutem in Domino. Noverint universi quod ego volo, concedo et
approbo, de assensu et voluntate Agnetis, uxoris me, concessiones et
donationes quas fecit domina Mabilia matertera mea, de assensu et
voluntate domini Mathei de Malliaco patrui mei, mariti ejusdem Mabilie,
abbacie de Portu Regio et monialibus ibidem deo servientibus,
cisterciensis ordinis, parisiensis dyocesis, ..." END OF QUOTE.
[Reference: http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/cartulaires/porrois/acte248].
A check of the helpful online Montmorency/Marly pedigree
(http://genealogy.euweb.cz/morency/morency1.html) confirms that
Bouchard de Marly II (died 1250) in fact had a paternal uncle named
Matthieu de Marly, seigneur of Laye (died 1249), whose wife was Mabile
de LaFerte, lady of Mondeville.
Thus, in this instance, it appears that the Latin word matertera was
used to describe the wife of a paternal uncle, not a blood related
maternal aunt.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Below is another example of matertera from a Spanish source dated 1247.
In this instance, matertera presumably means maternal aunt. Reference
is made to Ricardo de Oscha's grandfather [avi], Arnaldo de Madrencs,
and to Ricardo's aunt [matertera] Flandina, daughter of the said
Arnaldo de Madrencs.
Source: Diplomatari de San Felui, No. 130.
Date: 1247 novembre 21.
Ramon de Bas, abat, firma a Ramon d'Osca unes cases situades al carrer
de la Draperia de Girona.
Hoc est translatum fideliter sumptum .XIII. kalendas iulii anno Domini
millesimo trescentesimo tricesimo octauo a quodam publico instrumento
cuius tenor talis est. Sit notum cunctis quod ego Raimundus de Basso,
abbas Sancti Felicis Gerunde, per me et per omnes successores meos,
laudo et concedo tibi Richardo de Oscha et tuis in perpetuum omnes
illas domos integre que fuerunt condam Arnaldi de Madrencs, aui tui que
per me tenentur in Uilla <Noua> Gerunde, in Draperia, que afrontant ab
oriente et circio in domibus et tenedone Bernardi Renalli, a meridie in
domibus que fuerunt condam Bruni de Monteacuto, ab occiduo in carraria
Draperie, quas domos Flandina filia dicti Arnaldi de Madrencs,
matertera tua et maritus eius Bernardus de Beliana dederunt in dotem
Geraldo Oliuerio cum Bernarda eorum filia .." [Reference:
http://www.arxiuadg.org/annex/diplomatari.htm]
Thus, so far, we have two examples of matertera meaning paternal aunt,
one meaning the wife of a paternal uncle, and one meaning maternal
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< "Hec est finalis concordia facta in curia domini Rogeri de Laci,
constabularii Cestrie, anno vii regni Ricardi Anglie, apud Gliderhou, inter Henricum de
Helande et Robertum de Clivecher venatorem, coram domino Rogero de Laci,
constabulario Cestrie, et fratre Roberto filio Ricardi, acunculo domino R[ogeri]
de Laci, et Eustachio fratre suo ... de tribus bovatis terre in Clivecher cum
petinentiis suis quas Robertus venator tenet .." [Reference: William Farrer,
ed. Early Yorkshire CHarters, 3 (1916): 211-212].
We see above that "brother Robert Fitz Richard" is referred to in the
document as uncle [avunculo] of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester. We know from
various Lacy family pedigrees that brother Robert Fitz Richard was Roger de
Lacy's paternal uncle. >>
Does this document imply that Robert Fitz Richard is living at the time the
document was drawn?
It appears to say the seventh year of Richard [King of ] England which would
be 1196/7
However Roger FitzRichard, 1st Lord Warkworth [Roger de Lacy's paternal
uncle] has already died in 1177 [see www.genealogics.org]
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
Yes, Roger de Lacy's uncle, Robert Fitz Richard, was present at Roger
de Lacy's court in 1195-6 when the agreement was made between Henry de
Heland and Robert de Clivecher, huntsman. According to the website
below, Robert occurs as Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem
in England in 1197. He presumably died in or before 1199, when William
de Villiers became prior.
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/priors.htm
As for Roger Fitz Richard, of Warkworth, he was Roger de Lacy's
maternal grandfather, not his paternal uncle. I recommend you visit
Jim Weber's website for details. The link below is for Roger de Lacy's
extended ancestry.
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=jweber&id=I01911
Needless to say, Robert Fitz Richard and Roger Fitz Richard are two
separate and distinct individuals. I might mention that it was Roger
Fitz Richard's son, Robert Fitz Roger, who had custody of the daughter
of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, in 1213. Robert Fitz Roger was
Roger de Lacy's maternal uncle. It's a bit confusing but Roger de Lacy
had a paternal uncle named Robert Fitz Richard (the prior) and a
maternal uncle named Robert Fitz Roger (died 1214), of Warkworth
(ancestor of the Clavering family).
Nathaniel Taylor
"Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com" <royala...@msn.com>
wrote:
> ... it appears the word matertera must have undergone a
> similar transition in meaning as did the Latin word, "avunculus," which
> in classical Latin meant "maternal uncle," but which in medieval
> England could refer to either paternal or maternal uncle.
...
> Thus, so far, we have two examples of matertera meaning paternal aunt,
> one meaning the wife of a paternal uncle, and one meaning maternal
> aunt.
Du Cange and Niermeyer [the two standard medieval Latin dictionaries--Du
Cange's being three hundred years old] both give this expanded
definition of 'matertera' as 'paternal aunt'; Niermeyer even adds
'cousin' as a possible definition, and implies (through lack of specific
examples) that both usages might readily be found by the thirteenth
century throughout Western Europe. It may well be that some text
editors have misapplied the narrow classical sense of this word,
believing it the only valid definition. I very much doubt that
Keats-Rohan would be so naive, though she may well have had some reason
to opt for what may still have been the normative usage, in this case.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/immigrantsa.htm
Peter Stewart
> In article <1128437184.112610.103...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com" <royalances...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> > ... it appears the word matertera must have undergone a
> > similar transition in meaning as did the Latin word, "avunculus," which
> > in classical Latin meant "maternal uncle," but which in medieval
> > England could refer to either paternal or maternal uncle.
>
> ...
> > Thus, so far, we have two examples of matertera meaning paternal aunt,
> > one meaning the wife of a paternal uncle, and one meaning maternal
> > aunt.
>
> Du Cange and Niermeyer [the two standard medieval Latin dictionaries--
> Du Cange's being three hundred years old] both give this expanded
> definition of 'matertera' as 'paternal aunt'; Niermeyer even adds
> 'cousin' as a possible definition, and implies (through lack of specific
> examples) that both usages might readily be found by the thirteenth
> century throughout Western Europe. It may well be that some text
> editors have misapplied the narrow classical sense of this word,
> believing it the only valid definition. I very much doubt that
> Keats-Rohan would be so naive, though she may well have had some
> reason to opt for what may still have been the normative usage, in this
> case.
Keats-Rohan, like Richardson but unlike the earlier editors cited by
him, could have simply consulted the _Dictionary of Medieval Latin from
British Sources_ to find three definitions of 'matertera', with
examples, as follows: 1 maternal aunt; 2 grandmother; 3 sister.
If he wanted to compare this to usages found elsewhere, Richardson
could just as easily have looked up _Lexicon latinitatis Nederlandicae
medii aevi_ to find: 1 aunt, sister of the mother; 2 aunt, sister of
the father - again, both with examples.
A "trained historian" apparently is one who neglects to look in
standard dictionaries for the variety of meanings attached to words of
interest, and then tries to re-invent the wheel of definitions
laboriously for no useful purpose. A trained donkey would know better.
Peetr Stewart
Peter Stewart
> In article <1128437184.112610.103...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com" <royalances...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> > ... it appears the word matertera must have undergone a
> > similar transition in meaning as did the Latin word, "avunculus," which
> > in classical Latin meant "maternal uncle," but which in medieval
> > England could refer to either paternal or maternal uncle.
>
> ...
> > Thus, so far, we have two examples of matertera meaning paternal aunt,
> > one meaning the wife of a paternal uncle, and one meaning maternal
> > aunt.
>
> Du Cange and Niermeyer [the two standard medieval Latin dictionaries--
> Du Cange's being three hundred years old] both give this expanded
> definition of 'matertera' as 'paternal aunt'; Niermeyer even adds
> 'cousin' as a possible definition, and implies (through lack of specific
> examples) that both usages might readily be found by the thirteenth
> century throughout Western Europe. It may well be that some text
> editors have misapplied the narrow classical sense of this word,
> believing it the only valid definition. I very much doubt that
> Keats-Rohan would be so naive, though she may well have had some
> reason to opt for what may still have been the normative usage, in this
> case.
Keats-Rohan, like Richardson but unlike the earlier editors cited by
him, could have simply consulted the _Dictionary of Medieval Latin from
British Sources_ to find three definitions of 'matertera', with
examples, as follows: 1 maternal aunt; 2 grandmother; 3 sister.
If he wanted to compare this to usages found elsewhere, Richardson
could just as easily have looked up _Lexicon latinitatis Nederlandicae
medii aevi_ to find: 1 aunt, sister of the mother; 2 aunt, sister of
the father - again, both with examples.
A "trained historian" apparently is one who neglects to look in
standard dictionaries for the variety of meanings attached to words of
interest, and then tries to re-invent the wheel of definitions
laboriously for no useful purpose. A trained donkey would know better.
Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
> Du Cange and Niermeyer [the two standard medieval Latin dictionaries--Du
> Cange's being three hundred years old] both give this expanded
> definition of 'matertera' as 'paternal aunt'; Niermeyer even adds
> 'cousin' as a possible definition, and implies (through lack of specific
> examples) that both usages might readily be found by the thirteenth
> century throughout Western Europe. It may well be that some text
> editors have misapplied the narrow classical sense of this word,
> believing it the only valid definition.
I must admit I didn't know about these other usages.
Can anyone clarify whether the converse applied to the classical terms for
the father's siblings - could "patruus" and "amita" also be used for the
maternal uncle and aunt?
Chris Phillips
mhol...@mac.com
Peter Stewart wrote:
> Keats-Rohan, like Richardson but unlike the earlier editors cited by
> him, could have simply consulted the _Dictionary of Medieval Latin from
> British Sources_ to find three definitions of 'matertera', with
> examples, as follows: 1 maternal aunt; 2 grandmother; 3 sister.
>
> If he wanted to compare this to usages found elsewhere, Richardson
> could just as easily have looked up _Lexicon latinitatis Nederlandicae
> medii aevi_ to find: 1 aunt, sister of the mother; 2 aunt, sister of
> the father - again, both with examples.
>
> A "trained historian" apparently is one who neglects to look in
> standard dictionaries for the variety of meanings attached to words of
> interest, and then tries to re-invent the wheel of definitions
> laboriously for no useful purpose. A trained donkey would know better.
>
As a professional reference librarian I might have agreed with you ten
years ago. However, this is now part and parcel of life with home
computers and the Internet. Instead of looking up the meaning, he
merely asked a group of experts the meaning. You provided him with
great definitions and sources. Why bother going to a library when you
can get such great service at home?
If he were smart, he'd doublecheck your sources of course. Anyway, I
find it amusing that his chief antagonist and critic provided him with
what he needed.
Martin
Todd A. Farmerie
> Early Yorkshire Charters, 2 (1915): 433 has a pedigree chart of the
> Gant family. It shows that Walter de Gant had a sister, [Agnes?], who
> married William Fitz Neal, Constable of Chester. The following is
> given as the source for this statement: William Dugdale, Monasticon
> Anglicanum, i, 629b. I've examined the page in question. It consists
> of a confirmation charter dated 1115 issued by Walter de Gant to
> Bardney Abbey. This charter was witnessed by Walter's nephew ["nepote
> meo"], William, Constable of Chester. The charter is actually on pages
> 628-629. Strangely, Farrer says that William, Constable of Chester,
> who witnessed this charter was Walter de Gant's brother-in-law [see
> EYC, 2 (1915): 428]. But, I've double checked the charter and it
> clearly says William is "nepote meo." In this time period, the Latin
> word "nepos" can be nephew, grandson, or near kinsman. Since the
> constables of Chester held the manor of Bessingby of the Gant fee in
> 1166, it seems a good possibility that nephew is the intended meaning
> in this case. The charter witness, William Fitz Neal, was Constable of
> Chester as stated. He probably died before Michaelmas 1130, at which
> date his son, William, accounted for a fine of 40 marks which the king
> had made for him against the earl of Chester [see EYC, 2 (1915): 428].
> Interestingly, William Fitz Neal, Constable of Chester, is ancestral to
> Roger de Lacy, died 1211, Constable of Chester. So, we come full
> circle.
Is it clear that the witness was William Fitz Nigel and not his son William?
taf
Douglas Richardson
says he probably died in 1130. Can someone confirm that?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<mhol...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1128527039....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I am corresponding with a newsgroup, not just with Richardson - and anyway I
can't imagine that it was easier or quicker for him to transcribe a load of
irrelevant Latin from several texts in fishing for help with a single word,
rather than simply consulting a dictionary. He evidently thought he was
making another "discovery", and that someone here would credit this.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my original post, I find that by placing Agnes, wife
of Richard le Scrope, as a daughter of Walter de Gant, that this would
almost certainly make her the same person as Agnes, wife of William de
Mohun (occurs 1131-c.1142), of Dunster, Somerset [see Complete Peerage,
9 (1936): 18 (sub Mohun)]. Agnes de Mohun is thought to have been a
daughter or sister of Walter de Gant [see Complete Peerage, 9 (1936):
18, footnote h]. I think daughter is probable. Agnes must have
married William de Mohun in the late 1120's, as her son and heir by her
Mohun marriage was old enough to witness his father's charter c. 1142.
If Agnes married (2nd) Richard le Scrope c. 1143, then her son, Robert
le
Scrope, would be old enough to be of age by 1166, when he held property
of the Gant fee at Flotmanby and Barton-upon-Humber, Lincolnshire [see
William Farrer, ed., Early Yorkshire Charters, 2 (1915): 430, 489-490].
Agnes' father, Walter de Gant, was certainly born long before his
father's
death c. 1095, and was of age before 1113 or 1114 [see Early Yorkshire
Charters, 2 (1915): 432]. Walter married his only known wife, Maud of
Brittany, sometime before 1120, possibly by 1114. If we placed Agnes'
birth as c. 1110/5, it would fit the chronology of all three families,
i.e., Gant, Mohun, and Scrope, very well.
Early Yorkshire Charters, 2 (1915): 433 has a pedigree chart of the
Gant family. It shows that Walter de Gant had a sister, [Agnes?], who
married William Fitz Neal, Constable of Chester. The following is
given as the source for this statement: William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglicanum, i, 629b. I've examined the page in question. It consists
of a confirmation charter dated 1115 issued by Walter de Gant to
Bardney Abbey. This charter was witnessed by Walter's nephew ["nepote
meo"], William, Constable of Chester. The charter is actually on pages
628-629. Strangely, Farrer says that William, Constable of Chester,
who witnessed this charter was Walter de Gant's brother-in-law [see
EYC, 2 (1915): 428]. But, I've double checked the charter and it
clearly says William is "nepote meo." In this time period, the Latin
word "nepos" can be nephew, grandson, or near kinsman. Since the
constables of Chester held the manor of Bessingby of the Gant fee in
1166, it seems a good possibility that nephew is the intended meaning
in this case. The charter witness, William Fitz Neal, was Constable of
Chester as stated. He probably died before Michaelmas 1130, at which
date his son, William, accounted for a fine of 40 marks which the king
had made for him against the earl of Chester [see EYC, 2 (1915): 428].
Interestingly, William Fitz Neal, Constable of Chester, is ancestral to
Roger de Lacy, died 1211, Constable of Chester. So, we come full
circle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Todd A. Farmerie
> I believe William Fitz Neal was Constable of Chester in 1115. Farrer
> says he probably died in 1130. Can someone confirm that?
Ah, I missed the date - is there a dating clause or is this derived from
the witness list, and if derivative I wonder how solid the dating is.
William Fitz Nigel apparently was on the verge of, if not already into
his second half-century by 1115, which means any uncle would have been
no spring chicken, but 'uncle' Walter lived on for another
quarter-century, to 1139, while Walter's brother Robert was still a
going concern through 1157/8 - they could hardly have been older than
William. Perhaps 'kinsman' is the correct reading of "nepos" here.
taf
Douglas Richardson
If William Fitz Neal was the same age or older than Walter de Gant,
then it is doubtful that nepos should be translated nephew in this
case. Rather, it would appear that kinsman is the correct rendering of
nepos as used in this charter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
The following charter was issued by Gilbert de Gant, son and heir of
Walter de Gant, in the period, 1142-1147. The charter was witnessed by
Richard [le] Scrope, husband of his sister, Agnes de Gant, right about
the time I estimate that Richard and Agnes were married.
"Grant by Gilbert de Gant to the hospital of St. Peter, York, of a rent
of 10s. from the mill at the donor's stew in Hunmanby. This or a
larger rent, and the mill with the profit thereof, the donor gave to
the brethren. Date: 1142-1147,
G[ilebertus] de Gant omnibus fidelibus hominibus suis Francis et Anglis
salutem. Notum vobis sit omnibus me concessisse et dedisse hospitali
Sancti Petri de Eboraco redditum quendam decem solidorum in quodam
molendino meo ad vivarium meum de Hundemanneby in elemosinam, pro anima
patris mei et matris mee et pro anima mea et omnium parentum meorum.
Hanc elemosinam concessi et dedi hospitali eidem liberam et quietam a
me et omnibus heredibus meis. Hiis testibus: Rodberto decano, Radulfo
de Novilla, Willelmo nepote episcopi, Ricardo Scrop, Waltero filio
Ivonis et Willelmo fratre ejus, Almerico de Rictun, Gaufrido filio
Maugeri, Willelmo filio Mororheri. Hunc redditum molendini, si
emendare et perficere possunt, bene concedo eis et molendinum et totum
proficuum quod inde poterunt perquirere; eisdem testibus prenominatis."
[Reference: William Farrer, ed., Early Yorkshire Charters, 2 (1915):
469-470].
The first witness to the charter above, Robert the dean ["Rodberto
decano"], can be readily identified as Gilbert de Gant's own uncle,
Robert de Gant. Robert de Gant was Chancellor to King Stephen from
1140x1142 to 1154, and Dean of York from 1147 through perhaps 1157.
The biography of Robert de Gant below is taken from Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae, 1066-1300:
Robert de Gant: King's chancellor from 1140 × 42 to 1154 (Regesta III
p. x). First certain occurs as dean of York, 24 July 1147 (John of
Hexham pp. 320-1), but occ. possibly earlier, 1142 × 47 (EYC II no.
1181), 1143 × 47 (EYC III no. 1476, cal. EEA V no. 99). Occ. several
times temp. abp. Henry Murdac (EEA V nos. 110, 118, 123, 126, 128,
130), at abp. William's return in Apr. 1154 (William of Newburgh p.
80), and temp. abp. Roger, so after 10 Oct. 1154 (ibid. pp. 81-2; cart.
see of York: BL Lansdowne MS 402 fo. 80r-v = EEA XX no. 2; EYC III no.
1670 = EEA XX no. 72). Ceased to be kg.'s chanc. on d. of kg. Stephen,
Dec. 1154 (Regesta III p. x), but perhaps still alive and dean,
addressed in papal letter of 19 Jan. 1157 (EYC I no. 187; for date, see
Clay, 'Deans' p. 370, and cf. PUE I nos. 64, 65) [Reference: Diana E.
Greenaway, ed., Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300, 6 (1999): 7-13].
Gilbert de Gant was created Earl of Lincoln in 1147-1148. As we see
above, his uncle, Robert de Gant, first occurs as Dean of York in 1147.
Farrer's date of Gilbert de Gant's charter above as 1142-1147 can
perhaps be narrowed to c.1147.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie
duplicates.]
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Yes, there is a dating clause in Walter de Gant's charter.
>
> If William Fitz Neal was the same age or older than Walter de Gant,
> then it is doubtful that nepos should be translated nephew in this
> case. Rather, it would appear that kinsman is the correct rendering of
> nepos as used in this charter.
Curiously, Ormerod says, in talking about William Fitz William Fitz
Nigel (William junior), "This William is styled nepos Walteri de Gant:
Monast. I pars, pag. 143, and his sister Agnes stiled Agnes de Gant:
lib. C. in the paper before fol. 84. By which it may seem that William
son of Nigell married a sister of Walter de Gant, and daughter of
Gilbert." He clearly is indicating that it was the son, and not the
father, who is called "nepos". Perhaps someone could quote the exact
context of the charter in question.
Just out of curiousity, why "Fitz Neal"? The name appears as 'filius
Nigelli' in contemporary documents, and Nigel is a perfectly valid
modern English name, directly derived from the medieval form. Further,
he is known universally in the historical literature as William Fitz
Nigel, so why have you chosen to deviate from this form in favor of Neal
(isn't that derived from the Irish Niall, and hence not even the same name)?
taf
Chris Phillips
> Just out of curiousity, why "Fitz Neal"? The name appears as 'filius
> Nigelli' in contemporary documents, and Nigel is a perfectly valid
> modern English name, directly derived from the medieval form. Further,
> he is known universally in the historical literature as William Fitz
> Nigel, so why have you chosen to deviate from this form in favor of Neal
> (isn't that derived from the Irish Niall, and hence not even the same
name)?
Vicary Gibbs appears to class "Nigel" among the "made up Anglo-Latin forms
which were invented, or at any rate came into general use, in or about the
sixteenth century" [Complete Peerage, vol. 3, Appendix C, p. 597].
"Accordingly in this work Almeric, Emeric, Nigel, Reginald and Alured (for
which there is little more justification than for Galfrid, Henric, and
Carol) give place to Amaury, Emery, Neil, Reynold and Alfred ..." [p. 599].
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:di7vgl$sf8$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Yes, but this point of Gibbs doesn't in any way negate Todd's point, since
he was not suggesting that "Nigel" was a contemporary form in the first
place - specifically calling this "modern" - and "Neil" (or Néel as French
writers prefer) is still not the same as "Neal" derived from the Irish
Niall.
Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart wrote :
> Yes, but this point of Gibbs doesn't in any way negate Todd's point, since
> he was not suggesting that "Nigel" was a contemporary form in the first
> place - specifically calling this "modern" - and "Neil" (or Néel as French
> writers prefer) is still not the same as "Neal" derived from the Irish
> Niall.
I'm sure that Gibbs's statement explains why Doug chose _not_ to use Nigel,
so at least it answers half of Todd's question.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart wrote :
> Yes, but this point of Gibbs doesn't in any way negate Todd's point, since
> he was not suggesting that "Nigel" was a contemporary form in the first
> place - specifically calling this "modern" - and "Neil" (or Néel as French
> writers prefer) is still not the same as "Neal" derived from the Irish
> Niall.
I'm sure that Gibbs's statement explains why Doug chose _not_ to use Nigel,
Peter Stewart
It may for you & other would-be apologists, but not for me - Richardson (aka
"Doug") insists on calling people what they called themselves, when it suits
him, and no-one has been shown to have called himself "Neal".
Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
> It may for you & other would-be apologists, but not for me - Richardson
(aka
> "Doug") insists on calling people what they called themselves, when it
suits
> him, and no-one has been shown to have called himself "Neal".
I am not a "would-be apologist" for anyone.
Has it got to the stage where no one can post a piece of information on this
newsgroup without immediately being accused of being on "the wrong side"?
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
There are no sides - some people, however, are more frequently vocal in
attempted defense of Richardson than they ever find the time or principle to
be in criticism of him. You are one of them.
Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
> Yes, but this point of Gibbs doesn't in any way negate Todd's point, since
> he was not suggesting that "Nigel" was a contemporary form in the first
> place - specifically calling this "modern" - and "Neil" (or Néel as French
> writers prefer) is still not the same as "Neal" derived from the Irish
> Niall.
As a matter of fact, is it really the case that the spelling "Neal" is
derived from the Irish Niall?
Certainly "Neal(e)" is a much commoner English surname than "Neil". If it's
patronymic in origin, I'd have thought that would point to "Neal" as the
preferred vernacular form.
Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie
I think there is a point in time when a particular name form is so
engrained in the historical literature, as I would argue is the case
with William fitz Nigel, that one should resist the urge to choose an
alternative, however 'more correct', as long as it isn't downright
erroneous. It will only cause confusion, as it did here, to no good
benefit. (The goal, after all, is to have people know who you are
talking about.)
taf
Chris Phillips
> I think there is a point in time when a particular name form is so
> engrained in the historical literature, as I would argue is the case
> with William fitz Nigel, that one should resist the urge to choose an
> alternative, however 'more correct', as long as it isn't downright
> erroneous. It will only cause confusion, as it did here, to no good
> benefit. (The goal, after all, is to have people know who you are
> talking about.)
You may well be right, and while CP does use Reynold rather than Reginald
and so on, Gibbs admits that he has been consistent in retaining "Henry",
though he argues that "Harry" was the usual form of the name.
It's certainly the last subject I should choose to pick an argument over,
because I think it's largely a matter of taste. I was just trying to answer
your question, 'why "Fitz Neal"?'.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
This past week I sent Dr. Katharine Keats-Rohan a copy of my newsgroup
post regarding the identity of Margaret, wife of Otes Fitz William. I
received the following reply back today from her:
"Dear Mr Richardson,
I have been working on a deadline and have only just had time to read
your work. In view of the documents cited, I would agree with you
about Margaret, wife of Otes Fitz William. What an extraordinary abuse
of the word 'matertera'!
Regards, Katharine Keats-Rohan
Dr K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, FRHistS,
Prosopography Centre
Modern History Research Unit
Block 11.2
Radcliffe Infirmary
Oxford OX2 6HE" END OF QUOTE.
Gauging from Dr. Keats-Rohan's comments, it would seem that she is not
aware that the Latin word "matertera" was employed for a paternal aunt
in the medieval time period in England. I don't think this makes her
"naive" at all. All the authors and editors I have ever consulted such
as the distinguished William Farrer and the authoritative Complete
Peerage have translated the word "matertera" as maternal aunt, with no
qualification.
When time permits, I plan to contact Dr. Keats-Rohan again and send her
other examples I have found of "matertera" meaning paternal aunt, such
as Mathilde, Abbess of Fontevrault, Mabel de Marly, and Agnes, wife of
Richard [le] Scrope.
Todd A. Farmerie
> As a matter of fact, is it really the case that the spelling "Neal" is
> derived from the Irish Niall?
Certainly not on my part, which is why I framed it as a question.
> Certainly "Neal(e)" is a much commoner English surname than "Neil". If it's
> patronymic in origin, I'd have thought that would point to "Neal" as the
> preferred vernacular form.
If (and I do not accept this) the contemporary vernacular is to be
prefered in all cases, it might be well to point out that it should
probably also be "Filz" (or better, "filz" or "son of", as it was not a
surname at all), Fitz being equally a later contstruct. Thus Fitz Neal
is an odd chimera of different standards.
taf
Douglas Richardson
Farrer (who I was quoting in my post), refers to this individual as
"William Fitz-Neal, constable of Chester" [see Early Yorkshire
Charters, 2 (1913): 428, 433]. That is why I used the form, Fitz Neal,
dropping the hyphen. I don't believe the distinguished Mr. Farrer has
confused anyone by using "Fitz-Neal" over "Fitz-Nigel." Anyone
knowledgeable about this period knows that Neal, Neel, Nele, Neil, and
Nigel are used interchangeably by historians and genealogists to refer
to the same people. As Chris has correctly observed, it's really a
matter of personal taste.
I agree with Complete Peerage that if Nigel is among the "made up
Anglo-Latin forms which were invented, or at any rate came into general
use, in or about the sixteenth century," that another form such as Neil
or Neal should be employed. If so, then Mr. Farrer has done the right
thing to use "Neal" rather than "Nigel." I trust that answers taf's
question.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128789192....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In answer to taf's question, I should state that the historian, William
> Farrer (who I was quoting in my post), refers to this individual as
> "William Fitz-Neal, constable of Chester" [see Early Yorkshire
> Charters, 2 (1913): 428, 433]. That is why I used the form, Fitz Neal,
> dropping the hyphen. I don't believe the distinguished Mr. Farrer has
> confused anyone by using "Fitz-Neal" over "Fitz-Nigel." Anyone
> knowledgeable about this period knows that Neal, Neel, Nele, Neil, and
> Nigel are used interchangeably by historians and genealogists to refer
> to the same people. As Chris has correctly observed, it's really a
> matter of personal taste.
And your personal taste is usually to have people called what they can be
shown to have called themselves - so why "William Fitz Neal"? Can you show
us an instance where all or any of these three words in those forms were
used by him or by a contemporary of his?
> I agree with Complete Peerage that if Nigel is among the "made up
> Anglo-Latin forms which were invented, or at any rate came into general
> use, in or about the sixteenth century," that another form such as Neil
> or Neal should be employed. If so, then Mr. Farrer has done the right
> thing to use "Neal" rather than "Nigel." I trust that answers taf's
> question.
The trouble with this is that Vicary Gibbs in CP III p. 597 gave only a
superficial and not very bright editorial opinion on the matter, far from an
authoritative statement of a principle that could or should be consistently
applied had he chosen to try this.
He wrote: "The aim of the Editor of this work...is to use English names
where possible, and when these cannot certainly be ascertained to give the
names by which the person is described in the Latin or French, but never to
employ the made up artificial Anglo-Latin forms which were invented, or at
any rate came into general use, in or about the sixteenth century".
This assumes that the forms in question were "made up" just because they
can't be evidenced from written sources before the early 1500s. But anyone
perusing the Oxford English Dictionary ought to be struck by the enormous
change that came over English vocabulary in the course of the sixteenth
century, with a vast number of words adopted from French and directly from
Latin as complements, alternatives or indeed replacements for English terms.
Where the English word was common and sufficient for most expressive
purposes, it survived. Why not so with some personal names? Why if there
were perfectly adequate native forms in general usage was there a need for
the first antiquarians who were able to publish their work in print to come
up with standardised forms such as "Nigel", "Reginald" or "Amalric" by
simply dropping the Latin syllable "-us"?
How is this different in principle from the process of settling on "William"
from "Willelmus" or "John" from "Johannes" (both Norman imports, neither of
them favourite Anglo-Saxon names), except that the preferred forms in the
"made up artificial Anglo Latin" group are closer to the written original
than these others that became more popular? Common speech in the medieval
era probably represented something more like "Willem" than the tri-syllabic
"William", and "Johan" rather than the monosyllable "John", yet those
"artificial" forms stuck without anyone fretting over them.
In so far as "Nigel" was invented, this was presumably because it was
needed. Even by Shakespeare's time at the end of the 16th century, when he
needed an exact word merely to fit the metre of blank verse he simply
borrowed from Latin - as with "incarnadine" for instance - without anyone
calling him un-English or artificial. The form he gave to such words (_many_
of them) was unmistakably and uniquely English, as is "Reginald". The form
survives because English speakers liked it & used it - exactly the same way
that every other English word took its place in the language. Its
retrospective use for medieval people is just an application of familiarity
& commonsense when we can't know precisely what they were themselves called
in daily speech.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
Peter Stewart thinks _WILLIAM_ should be pronounced using THREE
syllables?
Vide infra pro risibus.
Australians pronounce _WILLIAM_ with THREE syllables?
Only somewhat retarded ones I should hope.
Certainly not the Australians I've known.
Americans pronounce it with TWO syllables -- _"WILLYAM"_ -- with the
stress on the first syllable.
All the Brits I know also say _"WILLYAM"_.
Whence cometh this TRI-SYLLABIC _WILLIAM_?
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:DSY1f.11330$U51...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Peter Stewart
but indetrminate as pronounced (the "i" counts as a syllable & has not the
same consonantal value as "y", hence the letters both figure distinctly in
the "Roman" alphabet used for English but not for Latin).
The point is we don't know HOW this name was pronounced, whether only the
first two syllables of the Latin form "Willelm(us)" were voiced, or
something more like the modern French "Guillaume", i.e. "Weeyum" rather than
"Willyam". We do know that it was most unlikely to be sounded as three
syllables, and so it is somewhat artificial to keep these in writing - the
Dutch and Germans don't, for instance, with "Willem" and "Wilhelm".
This was my point, that evidently passed over the head of Hines still
ducking in the tall grass from the Uriah episode.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3WZ1f.39$me7...@eagle.america.net...
D. Spencer Hines
I'm talking about the pronunciation of _WILLIAM_ today -- as was
crystal-clear from what I wrote. Peter, _in extremis_, is trying to
throw out red herrings.
He's also having severe Reading Comprehension 101 problems again.
Sad, very sad....
----------------------------
But also:
Amusing...
Peter Stewart thinks _WILLIAM_ should be pronounced using THREE
syllables?
Vide infra pro risibus.
Australians pronounce _WILLIAM_ with THREE syllables?
Only somewhat retarded ones I should hope.
Certainly not the Australians I've known.
Americans pronounce it with TWO syllables -- _"WILLYAM"_ -- with the
stress on the first syllable.
All the Brits I know also say _"WILLYAM"_.
Whence cometh this TRI-SYLLABIC _WILLIAM_?
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:DSY1f.11330$U51...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| Common speech in the medieval era probably represented something
| more like "Willem" than the tri-syllabic "William", and "Johan" rather
| than the monosyllable "John", yet those "artificial" forms stuck
| without anyone fretting over them.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:tj_1f.11413$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<gibberish snipped>
Peter Stewart
up as he goes along.
I wote: "Common speech in the medieval era probably represented something
more like "Willem" than the tri-syllabic "William", and "Johan" rather than
the monosyllable "John", yet those "artificial" forms stuck without anyone
fretting over them."
I was making a point about the forms of names as written in relation to
their probable pronunciation in the medieval era, not today, and the written
form "William" undeniably has three syllables. The spoken name also has
three syllables, but only two are distinctly sounded in common speech.
Where does Hines think the second "i" in the English name William came from?
This is not in the Latin form, not in the French, not in the German, not in
the Dutch.....
The second "i" in WIlliam is NOT a consonant, that can only be sounded with
a vowel, but has become a semi-consonant, obscured from lack of stress in
the ease of ordinary, careless speech. Has Hines never heard of the familiar
abbreviation "Willy"? How does he pronounce this, I wonder - as a
monosyllable, "Wee Will Winky runs through the town"? No, of course not, he
turns the consonant "y" into a vowel, and pronounces it exactly as a careful
speaker might the first two syllables of the three in "William".
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fD_1f.43$me7...@eagle.america.net...
D. Spencer Hines
desperately trying to throw the bloodhounds off his trail.
"...the written form "William" undeniably has three syllables. The
spoken name also has three syllables..." [PMS]
No Sale.
"WILLIAM" quite obviously is NOT pronounced with THREE syllables -- just
TWO -- "WILLYAM" -- with the stress on the first syllable.
Only a Non-English Speaker would suggest otherwise -- or a fraud caught
by the short hairs -- and squealing -- or perhaps a nominal English
speaker, but one with severe cognitive deficiencies.
Deeeeeelightful! As Theodore Roosevelt would say.
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dr%1f.11445$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<blathersnip>
Peter Stewart
> More putrescent red herrings tossed off by Peter M. Stewart --
> desperately trying to throw the bloodhounds off his trail.
>
> "...the written form "William" undeniably has three syllables. The
> spoken name also has three syllables..." [PMS]
>
> No Sale.
>
> "WILLIAM" quite obviously is NOT pronounced with THREE syllables -- just
> TWO -- "WILLYAM" -- with the stress on the first syllable.
>
> Only a Non-English Speaker would suggest otherwise -- or a fraud caught
> by the short hairs -- and squealing -- or perhaps a nominal English
> speaker, but one with severe cognitive deficiencies.
Anything can be expected from a fraud of the kind who would cut out the
second part of my sentence in order to misrepresent it entirely. I wrote:
'the written form "William" undeniably has three syllables. The spoken name
also has three syllables, but only two are distinctly sounded in common
speech.' Hines can't keep his phoney line of argument going if he deals with
what I actually wrote, so he deconstructs it & pretends the parts mean
something different from the whole.
On past form, next he will try to claim that I am "backing and shunting" for
restating the same point again and again to counter his distortions.
"William" has three syllables, commonly pronounced as just two, with the
second "i" as a semi-consonant. Its syllablic value in sound is virtually
lost through lack of stress, but it remains in the word as written and -
vestigially - as pronounced. The Dutch "Willem" has only two syllables, as
do the German "Wilhelm" and the French "Guillaume". But the English form is
artificial, as far as we know, in relation to any way the name has ever been
commonly pronounced by native English speakers. That is the point I made
before Hines started making an ignorant nuisance of himself.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
PMS is still missing the point.
"WILLIAM" is not only "commonly" pronounced with two syllables in
English -- but CORRECTLY pronounced with just two syllables in English,
"WILLYAM" -- never three.
Why, I'll bet Peter's English pronunciation is so poor he can't even
pronounce "CHOLMONDELEY" -- which is also pronounced with TWO
syllables -- "CHUMLEY".
Damn! Now I'm forced to give English lessons to Australians who have
attended Oxford, without graduating, but who have severe cognitive
deficiencies.
But someone's got to do it....
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Peter Stewart
> Hilarious!
>
> PMS is still missing the point.
>
> "WILLIAM" is not only "commonly" pronounced with two syllables in
> English -- but CORRECTLY pronounced with just two syllables in English,
> "WILLYAM" -- never three.
NO Hines, you are WRONG - look it up in one of the Oxford dictionaries.
Try the Oxford Reference Dictionary, that I happen to have by me: in the
pronunciation system given, your version of the "correct" prounciation would
be rendered "wiljem" (with the indistinct, unstressed "e" shown upside
down). However, the name is not rendered in the way, but rather as a
tri-syllable: "wiliem".
The homespun Hines theory is a waste of everybody's time.
For a rabid monarchist, he might like to note that Queen Eliozabeth II, who
speaks her native language pretty well, pronounces the name of her grandson
William with three syllables.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
| ...Queen Eliozabeth [sic] II,...
--------------------------
Hilarious!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Christmas in October.
Enjoy!
Peter Stewart
Nothing to say about your unwarranted comments regarding the "correct"
pronunciation of "William"? Lost in the tall grass again?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0N12f.47$me7...@eagle.america.net...
Manoel Cesar Furtado
Manoel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Prosopon Newsletter Copyright c Donald C. Jackman, 1997
Systematic Extension in Latin Relationship Terminology.
Donald C. Jackman (State College, Pennsylvania)
The Who’s Who of the Middle Ages more often than not boils down to who is
related to whom. The enormity of this problem is readily perceived when one
applies a concept of relative historicity to the sources providing our
information on the aristocracy. How could the given medieval author be sure
of the comparative importance of particular persons and their actions, or of
the value of relationship data concerning them? He was obliged to relativize
his historical statements, above all by limiting them closely to mesh with
his own self-conception. By this means he was able to dodge the issue of
ever-changing interrelationships and their effect on the worth of what he
was recording. The narrative can be viewed to some extent as an effort to
record only such events that could undergo no change in their significance -
hence, for example, the penchant for anecdote. Even more so the narrative
represents, or allows to flourish, the psychology of the author both
actively and passively. Description of relationship could not always be
avoided if narrative was to be connected. Similarly, in official documents
relationship terminology was often indispensable: yet there too the need to
relativize existed. Absolute precision in relationship terminology was
undesirable. For example, the monastery receiving a gift of land might wish
to record the relationship between certain co-benefactors in order to
document fully its title to the gift; but it might not wish to make that
relationship precise, lest such precision help heirs contest the gift.(1).
Such neglect or lack of precision in relationship terminology was moreover
informed by a fundamental aspect of aristocratic society. To say that ‘the
aristocrats were all related with each other’ may be trite and redundant,
but the complexities of interrelationship certainly diminished the force of
any one description of relationship. An adoptive brother might be both
agnatic first cousin and cognatic second cousin, and in many cases the more
distant relationship was especially important.(2). From the time when the
aristocratic basis of society became ingrained under the Franks, most of
these factors would have been part of the everyday awareness of those who
worked in the written language. Clear examples of imprecision can already be
observed in the later eighth century. In the traditiones of Lorsch we find
reference to ‘Heimrich son of Williswint’, yet we know that Heimric was
the son of Williswint’s son Cancor.(3). Elsewhere a Wido can be discovered
with a germanus Warin, who was undoubtedly Wido’s brother-in-law.(4).
Thereafter imprecision is not infrequently met. In most cases it is
necessary to infer relationships, however, in order to observe the
imprecision of the terminology. Lettered persons would not have used
relationship terms indiscriminately. In the examples provided, Heimrich can
become the filius of his grandmother if his parents are already dead, and
Warin is Wido’s germanus through a simple extension to relationship by
marriage. Once such usages turned into conventions, there was an opportunity
to develop terminological extension as a system. Medieval Latin discards
various Classical extensions in relationship terminology and replaces them
with its own, in light of which there can be little doubt that grammarians
gave considerable thought to the question.
To discern the system it is necessary to reconstruct relationships. The
possibility ofextension must therefore take its place among the sources and
resources that lead towards genealogical accuracy. To this end the
fundamental properties of relationship terminology should be identified. We
can divide terms into two basic categories -those that lexically denote
exact relationships, and those that do not. Terms of exact relationship can
extend their meanings, but with inexact terms, such as cognatus and
consanguineus it is difficult to foresee extension. This simple
categorization allows us to concentrate on the exact terms, which can be
divided as follows. Terms of immediate relationship come in three types -
descendant (filius, -a), horizontal (frater, soror, germanus, -a), ascendant
(mater, pater). Terms of oblique relationship include patruus, avunculus,
amita, matertera. Then there are lineal ascendant and descendant terms, thus
avus with its derivatives, of which proavus and atavus are sometimes found
extending to the general meaning of remote ascendant. This basic
categorization is of interest, although by no means does it subsume all
relationship terms. The exact terms of immediate relationship permit some
finite observations regarding their potential for extension. While frater
and filius can readily be applied to in-law relationships and, less readily,
to ‘telescopic’ situations (frater for cousin, filius for grandson), mater
and pater seem difficult to manipulate in this fashion. Much depends on
context. When the chronicler Marianus Scottus describes King Hermann of Salm
as fratris filius of Count Heinrich of Laach, he is referring to an in-law
relationship that is economically dealt with through a compound term; it
remains to the modern historian to determine which part of the relationship
was by marriage, and why Marianus Scottus thought the relationship was
significant.(5). In many cases the extended terms may arise through the
author’s imagination, linguistic as well as historical. System lay less in
a set of logically sequenced rules than in observations about the potential
of individual terms and situations. In one particular case, however, the
terminological potential yields a system. The termnepos, neptis falls into
three different categories: inexact (cousin of undetermined degree), lineal
descendant (grandchild), oblique (nephew, niece). Within this variety of
usages there is a single guiding principle. A nephew or first cousin (nepos)
is the grandchild (nepos) of a common ancestor: the medieval extension to
cousin appears to originate in this observation. Nepos therefore may
regularly extend to any relationship where one party is grandchild of the
common ancestor: it can extend to first cousin, once or even twice removed,
but apparently not to second cousin. Even then, occasion was found for
extending neposfurther. Monarchs might refer to fairly distant relatives as
nepos. This ‘royal extension’ became prevalent under Emperor Heinrich II
(1002-24), but the principle conceivably was recognized at a much earlier
date.(6). The case is difficult to prove; yet by showing favour to distant
relatives through the use of this term of familiarity, the monarchs lend
credence to the notion that nepos normally extended only to close
consanguinity. The situation of nepos is especially interesting from a legal
standpoint. Despite the ongoing efforts of the church to stamp out
consanguineous marriage, customary law permitted marriage between second
cousins while explicitly forbidding marriage between first cousins. In other
words, nepotes could not marry: thus the equation between regular
terminological extension of nepos and the degrees of forbidden marital
relationship seems to have been exact.(7). At one point the Saxon Annalist
actually speaks of nepotes consanguinei in reference to forbidden marital
relationship, cousins (consanguinei) too closely related to be permitted to
marry.(8). The medieval extension of nepos need not therefore merely be a
word game: it might well have arisen in direct conjunction with the
customary law concerning marital consanguinity. Terms of oblique
relationship reveal circumstances that are hardly less interesting and
perhaps equally indicative of an implicit association between terminological
extension and aristocratic social norms. Here there was limited scope for
extension, but only because the terms did not frequently arise. Otherwise
such terms provide a rich field for the imagination. The word avunculus is
known for a number of situations where it cannot possibly mean ‘mother’s
brother’. The most famous is probably Dudo of St. Quentin’s reference to
Count Bernard of Senlis as the avunculus of William Longsword, which is
thought to conflict with that chronicler’s information to the effect that
Longsword’s mother was a daughter of the Neustrian margrave Berengar,
placing both reports in a dubious light.(9). Extension opens up a variety of
possibilities that might eventually lead to accurate genealogical
reconstruction. Thus avunculus would be fully relevant to an in-law
relationship, if there was also a close consanguineal implication of the
term. Only a few representative instances of terminological extension have
been offered here, and the true dimensions of the system cannot yet be
envisaged. The medieval tendency was to avoid descriptions of relationship.
What little material comes down cannot always be put to immediate use. It
can nevertheless be suggested that a terminological system in all its
multifarious aspects was integral to an informed view of the aristocracy; it
developed as a series of observations concerning the uniqueness of
relationship situations and the efficacy of their description. Like the
relationships, the very notion of systematic extension was controlled by
practical needs of the text and the psychology of the author. Terminological
extension was the expression of profound cultural awareness and as such it
served its own end.(10). It presents some vital issue for modern historians
to ponder as the texts become more accessible.
NOTES
1. In 821 Waldrada donated estates to Fulda with the permission of Count
Udo, and in 824 a new deed was prepared showing that these two were donating
the same estates jointly; Codex diplomaticus Fuldensis, ed. E.F.J. Dronke
(Kassel, 1850), nos. 395, 429. Nowhere is the relationship between Waldrada
and Udo given; but it is widely believed that they were mother and son.
2. For example, Duke Konrad of Swabia (983-97) was agnatic first cousin
twice removed of Duke hermann I (926-49); Duke Otto III (1048-57) was
agnatic first cousin once removed of Duke Herman IV (1030-8). In all cases
the ducal claim arrived cognatically.
3. Codex Laureshamensis, ed. K. Glockner (3 vols., Darmstadt, 1929-36), no.
228: ‘Heimricus comes, filius domne nostre Willisuuinde’. The classic
study of this family is Glockner, ‘Lorsch und Lotharingen, Robertiner und
Capetinger’, Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins N.F. 50 (1937),
301-54.
4. G.C. Crollius, ‘Probationes Hornbacenses aliaeque ad origines Salicas’,
Academia Electoralis Theodoro-Palatina, Historia et commentationes 6 (1789)
240-2 (no.1). Wido’s genuine brother is named in MGH Dipl. Karol.148.
Warin, conversely, was count of Ladengau, and his line essentiallyis known.
5. Marianus Scottus, Chronicon ad 1081, MGH SS V, 562.
6. A noteworthy occurrence is in the contemporary chronicle, Thietmari
Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon, ed. R. Holtzmann (MGH SSrerGerm n.s. 9,
Berlin 1935), 164-5, in reference to the second cousins Emperor Otto III and
Pope Gregory V.
7. Lex Salica, ed. K.A. Eckhardt (MGH LL Nat. Germ. 4/2, Hanover 1969) 209:
‘Si quis sororem aut fratris filiam aut certe alterius gradus consobrinam
aut fratris uxorem aut auunculi sceleratis nuptiis sibi iunxerit, huic penae
subiaceat, ut a tali consortio separetur; atque etiam si filios habuerint,
non habeantur legitimi heredes, sed infamia sint notati’ (23 § 16)
[italics added]. The word consobrinam usually refers to first cousin simply,
but here it undergoes some qualification to be understood in conjunction
with fratris filiam; see discussion in D.C. Jackman, ‘Das Eherecht und der
frudeutsche Adel’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte,
Germanistische Abteilung 112 (1995) 191-9.
8. Annalista Saxo ad 1049, MGH SS VI, 688.
9. Dudo, De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum, ed. J. Lair
(Memoires de la Societe des antiquaires de Normandie, 3me s. 3/2, Caen,
1865), 157, 189.
10. Compare the statement of K. Leyser, ‘The German aristocracy from the
ninth to the early twelfth century’, Past and Present 41 (1968) 27,
regarding chronicles ‘written for an aristocratic audience, whether it was
tonsured or belted’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bill Hofstadter
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether one or ten million
people pronounce William as two syllables in 2005, anymore than how
people pronouce the word Thames in 2005. What you are saying in that a
great many contemporary Americans have a lazy way of pronunciation and
often combine syllables. This isn't a criticism just a fact.
Bill Hofstadter
On 2005-10-09 02:02:35 -0400, "D. Spencer Hines"
D. Spencer Hines
----------------------------
Hilarious!
Why, I'll bet Peter M. Stewart thinks _GLOUCESTER_ is pronounced with
THREE syllables too.
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
Peter Stewart
and see what I have told him about its correct pronunciation by native
speakers.
I wonder why not.
The same dictionary will show him just as unequivocally how "Gloucester" is
pronounced: two syllables.
And this is the man accusing others of throwing up "red herrings"!
Like Richardson, he suffers from a compulsion to remind us frequently how
great a fool he is.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ig2f.70$me7...@eagle.america.net...
fairt...@breathe.com
> No.
>
> You are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether one or ten million
> people pronounce William as two syllables in 2005, anymore than how
> people pronouce the word Thames in 2005. What you are saying in that a
> great many contemporary Americans have a lazy way of pronunciation and
> often combine syllables. This isn't a criticism just a fact.
>
> > On 2005-10-09 02:02:35 -0400, "D. Spencer Hines" said:
>
>>
>> "WILLIAM" is not only "commonly" pronounced with two syllables in
>> English -- but CORRECTLY pronounced with just two syllables in English,
>> "WILLYAM" -- never three.
>>
DSH is mistaking "common usage" in one area of the world for "correct usage"
In English English William is always pronounced with three syllables
cheers
Simon
D. Spencer Hines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Next thing you know PMS willl be telling us _FEATHERSTONEHAUGH_ and
_CHOLMONDELEY_ are pronounced with FOUR syllables -- because they are
written as they are.
Christmas in October.
Douglas Richardson
For those who are not familiar with Ormerod, the information that Todd
Farmerie has quoted below regarding the family of William Fitz Neal,
Constable of Chester comes from the book, History of the County
Palatine and City of Chester, by George Ormerod, 1 (1819): 508.
I trust Ormerod is quoting the documents he saw correctly. However,
I'm unable to identify his sources: "Monast. I pars, pag. 143, and lib.
C. in the paper before fol. 84." Does anyone have any idea what these
sources are?
Insofar as William Fitz Neal's wife's name is concerned, Farrer
suggested that her given name might be Agnes [see William Farrer, Early
Yorkshire CHarters, 2 (1915): 433 (chart)]. However, it appears her
given name was actually Alice (or Adeliz), as evidenced by a charter
issued by William Fitz Neal to Bridlington Priory [see Charles T. Clay,
Early Yorkshire Charters, 12 (1965): 143, citing Bridlington
Chartulary, pg. 177].
The source, Bridlington Chartulary, appears to be the book, Abstracts
of the Charters and other documents contained in the Chartulary of the
Priory of Bridlington, edited by W. T. Lancaster, published in 1912.
Hopefully someone here on the newsgroup has access to this book and can
post the particulars regarding Willianm Fitz Neal's charter naming his
wife, Adeliz.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> Curiously, Ormerod says, in talking about William Fitz William Fitz
> Nigel (William junior), "This William is stiled nepos Walteri de Gant:
> Monast. 1 pars, pag. 143, and his sister Agnes stiled Agnes de Gant:
> lib. C. in the paper before fol. 84. By which it may seem that William
> son of Nigell married a sister of Walter de Gant, and daughter of
> Gilbert."
> taf
suntzu2
Brett Ankrom
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0kh2f.76$me7...@eagle.america.net...
Peter Stewart
> Do the words "beating a dead horse" mean anything???
Not to Hines - any more than "red herring" has a meaning that he can
recognise.
He won't look up the correct English pronunciation of "William", though
prognosticating about this, and yet he throws up other totally
irrelevant words that have no semi-consonantal -i in them.
The man is a fool and a pest, as everyone but himself knows only too
well.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
Peter M. Stewart certainly doesn't think of himself as a "dead horse" --
and neither do I.
DSH
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> For those who are not familiar with Ormerod, the information that Todd
> Farmerie has quoted below regarding the family of William Fitz Neal,
> Constable of Chester comes from the book, History of the County
> Palatine and City of Chester, by George Ormerod, 1 (1819): 508.
Actually, no. It came from the second edition (ed. Helsby, 1882), 1:691.
> I trust Ormerod is quoting the documents he saw correctly. However,
> I'm unable to identify his sources: "Monast. I pars, pag. 143, and lib.
> C. in the paper before fol. 84." Does anyone have any idea what these
> sources are?
Monast would appear to be Monasticon Anglicanum.
Dora Smith
It's true that William is pronounced simililarly to million in the U.S.
How in the world is it pronounced in Britain? I know that Prince William's
name doesn't sound like it has three syllables. I in first syllable has a
bit of an accent but nothing distinguishable.
Originally it was pronounced "Gilliam", I think. Latin form was Gilliam or
Gilliaumus, but I don't know if it preceded the Gilliam. I don't think
this was originally a Latin name.
Now, I could be wrong...
(Dora ducks and runs for cover.)
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
vill...@austin.rr.com
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Merilyn Pedrick
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia
-------Original Message-------
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> It's true that William is pronounced simililarly to million in the U.S.
> How in the world is it pronounced in Britain? I know that Prince
> William's name doesn't sound like it has three syllables.
It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers. If you listen to a
Christmas message of the queen in which she mentions her grandson, you
will hear three distinct syllables.
> I in first syllable has a bit of an accent but nothing distinguishable.
I'm not sure what kind of "accent" you are hearing in a short -i from
British speakers, but I imagine they in turn would hear one in the same
vowel from a Texan.
> Originally it was pronounced "Gilliam", I think. Latin form was Gilliam or
> Gilliaumus, but I don't know if it preceded the Gilliam. I don't think
> this was originally a Latin name.
Germanic, and then Latinised as Willelmus, or as Guillelmus. The second
-i is pretty much an English peculiarity, I think - I can't at the
moment call to mind another instance of this.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
>
> Monast would appear to be Monasticon Anglicanum.
Here is the link to the website that has the online version of
Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum. Let us know if you're able to find
the references cited by Ormerod.
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliographia/index.php?function=detail&id=2659
Doug McDonald
> No.
>
> You are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether one or ten million
> people pronounce William as two syllables in 2005, anymore than how
> people pronouce the word Thames in 2005. What you are saying in that a
> great many contemporary Americans have a lazy way of pronunciation and
> often combine syllables. This isn't a criticism just a fact.
>
The fact is that many people ... at least where I grew up, in Texas,
pronounce William so that the phonemes come out with the the second
"i" clearly there, as a clearly noticeable prefix sound to the "a"
in "iam". I do, sometimes. It's not quite a syllable, but it is
clearly "will - eyam". It's like a grace note in music notation ...
it's not counted as a full syllable, but it is there and it takes
time. Sometimes I, and other Texans, really do leave it entirely out.
We are not said to "drawl" for nothing!
Doug McDonal
Jwc...@aol.com
Certainly the words beating a dead horse have a meaning. It
means to engage in a pointless activity. Assume You have a horse and wagon in
many cases drover`s whip is available to the driver to make the horse go
faster. The Horse suddenly drops in it`s tracks dead. The Driver continues whipping
it to no avail. In the current thread Spencer is opting to champion the
`street `/ public pronunciation of the name William. He says Will-yam. Peter is
championing the canonical pronunciation of Will-i-am and it seems that never
the twain (i e two) shall meet (i e agree)
Sincerely,
James William Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS For the Record I not uncommonly use the even worse pronunciation
of Will-yum.
Doug Thompson
Stewart at p_m_s...@msn.com wrote on 10/10/05 7:56 am:
> It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
> three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers.
Not by most I'm sure! I couldn't be called a careful speaker but there are
three distinct syllables in William (and million) for me. Maybe there's a
regional difference but I'm from Somerset and have lived in Birmingham,
London and now Sussex. As far as I can tell, most people I talk to use three
syllables for these words.
Doug
suntzu2
D. Spencer Hines
pronounce "William" with THREE syllables are somehow being "sloppy" and
"not speaking clearly" or using a "street pronunciation".
Indeed Hilarious!
DSH
Peter Stewart
> It is certainly risible to hold to an idea that people who don't
> pronounce "William" with THREE syllables are somehow
> being "sloppy" and "not speaking clearly" or using a "street
> pronunciation".
Careers in the BBC have risen & fallen over things as small as the
second -i in William.
I live in a city named Melbourne, which the inhabitants almost all
pronounce "Malb'n". Many of them find it risible when our head of state
speaks distinctly of "Melbourne", but then she has the advantage of
having heard the name spoken by people who in turn had heard Queen
Victoria speak about her prime minister, after whom the place was
named.
So who has the correct version? Both, of course. Great changes, such as
the vowel shift in English, and lesser changes such as effectively
eliding semi-consonantal -i into a full consonant -y eventually become
"correct" when the habit (whether "sloppy" or not) is found to be
practically universal. This doesn't make the former pronunciation
incorrect - I remember an old lady in the 1960s who still said
"balcony" with the stress on the second syllable, rhyming with
"macaroni", as it had been pronounced in the 18th century. She wasn't
wrong, just out of date.
Meanwhile there is the separate problem of persons who try to ridicule
others over matters they don't themselves understand, then fail to
withdraw their jibes honorably when they have to change their tune. For
this there is no help, only contempt.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
It is certainly risible to hold to an idea that people who don't
pronounce "William" with THREE syllables are somehow being "sloppy" and
"not speaking clearly" or using a "street pronunciation".
D. Spencer Hines
Todd A. Farmerie
> Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>
>>Monast would appear to be Monasticon Anglicanum.
>
> Here is the link to the website that has the online version of
> Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum. Let us know if you're able to find
> the references cited by Ormerod.
"us"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket or have you adopted the 'Royal
"We"'? Oh, and since you asked, I have.
taf
Douglas Richardson
to find them. The author of the account on William Fitz Neal's family
in VCH Lancaster, volume 1, was similarly unable to find them. Perhaps
you'll have better luck.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie
> I've already looked for the references cited by Ormerod and was unable
> to find them. The author of the account on William Fitz Neal's family
> in VCH Lancaster, volume 1, was similarly unable to find them.
What gives you that idea? I don't see anything there to indicate such a
fruitless search was embarked upon.
> Perhaps you'll have better luck.
They seem pretty clear from citations on surrounding pages.
taf
Peter Stewart
> I'm certainly not "changing my tune" either.
>
> It is certainly risible to hold to an idea that people who don't
> pronounce "William" with THREE syllables are somehow being "sloppy" and
> "not speaking clearly" or using a "street pronunciation".
You certainly have changed your tune, as you originally maintained,
explicitly, that William doesn't even HAVE three syllables to be pronounced,
whereas now you are admitting, implicitly, that it does have THREE after
all, but that it is equally "correct" to pronounce only two of these.
Your withdrawal of misguided insults directed at me can only be accepted
when it is proffered.
Peter Stewart
mj...@btinternet.com
I presume it's lamed itself by putting its foot in its mouth too often.
If and when it finishes with its feeble English lessons, designed to
confirm that pronunciation in Hawaii is different to that in London
(duh!), perhaps it can find some mediaeval genealogy to contribute - or
it is lacking in this regard too?
D. Spencer Hines
desperate, hilarious, back and fill -- with tail between legs.
Originally he insisted only careless people, sloppy people, would
pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO syllables.
Now the fool has been backed into a corner, embarrassed by his own
supreme Olympian arrogance and *somewhat* chastened. The hard stroke
with the 2 by 4 I gave to his right temple has had *some* effect.
So, PMS now admits most people in Britain pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO
syllables -- as is true in America.
["It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."] -- PMS
Hilarious!
So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.
Ridiculous!
Hoist With His Own Petar!
Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.
Deeeeeelightful!
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
How about MOST CANADIANS?
MOST AUSTRALIANS?
MOST SOUTH AFRICANS?
Are they CARELESS SPEAKERS too?
One fellow here [a Texan?] admitted he sometimes pronounces "WILLIAM" as
"WILLYUM" and seems to be ashamed of that.
I certainly don't understand why. Vide supra. PMS admits most BRITONS
pronounce it that way -- "Will-yum".
"WILLYAM" and "WILLYUM" are very close in pronunciation -- and both are
quite acceptable, and by no means careless, sloppy or illiterate.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
Ginny Wagner
WILL-I-AM
;-)
Kelly Graham
being persued ?
The only thing about "William" that would concern me with "William"
is when and where
the name first came from, and when it started popping-up in the families I
research! But, then,
that may just be me :)
Kelly Paul Graham
If something had NOTHING to do with Medieval-Genealogy, PLEASE take
is off-list!
You're wasting space if you don't!!
----- Original Message -----
From: <mj...@btinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: Pronunciation Of _William_
> ______________________________
Jwc...@aol.com
I seem to recall it`s being teutonic (German/ Saxon / Norse)
in origin. It comes from Wil- helm and basically means protector.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Ginny Wagner
> being pursued > to my way of thinking, since the English
scribes in the 11 and early 12c didn't know French and it
was French/Breton/Norman people who were being written
about, it makes sense to try to understand how a name would
have sounded to their ear. From there one can try to
picture how they would have sounded the foreign name out and
tried to spell it phonetically since many of the recipients
were soldiers, not clerks and wouldn't have known how to
spell their own names.
So, if you were a fighter and WTC gave you a hunk of land
for helping him and you had to go to the local scribe who
only knew Latin or some kind of Anglo-Saxon mixture and some
of them didn't know how to spell their name in French, much
less in this foreign to tongue, then how would they
communicate?
Of course, the fighter would sound out the name, the scribe
would translate it as best he could, but when you went to
register that other piece of land that WTC had given you
over in another part of England (as he was wont to do) and
that other scribe decided to use other letters to get what
he heard maybe some flavor of Celtic ... well, you can see
how misspellings and multiple spellings of the same person's
name could come about just from ignorance; not to mention
guile or scribal error.
I would like to know how William was sounded out ... I do
have a lot of ancestors with the name William. Their
shields have Guilliame, well, Gvilliam, actually. What
would an English scribe have written Gvilliam of Gorram as?
Goeram, Gorram, Goran, Gorham, Goeram ... but what about
Humboldt? Would they just change that to the more familiar
Humbert?
There was no dictionary of French to English at the time so
how would they think about it? What letters would they
choose? It would require a very cunning linguist to get it
right. And for today, to understand properly and translate
correctly, it would take an extremely knowledgeable person
to find the proper mixes and matches.
For myself, right now, I'm scanning in an ancient tome that
is due back to the library ... quite bored so having a bit
of mental play by imagining the ways William could be
pronounced ... and mispronounced. ;-)
Ginny
Peter Stewart
> NO change of tune by Hines -- whereas Peter M. Stewart [PMS] is doing a
> desperate, hilarious, back and fill -- with tail between legs.
>
> Originally he insisted only careless people, sloppy people, would
> pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO syllables.
This is an outright lie.
> Now the fool has been backed into a corner, embarrassed by his own
> supreme Olympian arrogance and *somewhat* chastened. The hard stroke
> with the 2 by 4 I gave to his right temple has had *some* effect.
>
> So, PMS now admits most people in Britain pronounce "WILLIAM" with TWO
> syllables -- as is true in America.
>
> ["It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
> three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."] -- PMS
Exactly so, and consistent with what I have said from the start. Obviously
there ARE three syllables and to sound them all is more careful than to lose
one. Hines now admits that there ARE THREE syllables, having shrieked a
different tune at first.
> Hilarious!
>
> So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.
Of course they are. Why shouldn't they be? How else do you think elisions
come about in the first place? The only context I know of where elisions are
the result of care rather than carelessness is in poetry where the reader
may have to follow the scansion in order to know exactly which syllables are
to be elided.
> Ridiculous!
All that is ridiculous in this thread is the refusal of Hines to confess his
folly.
> Hoist With His Own Petar!
>
> Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.
Then quote me - the quotation above doesn't support your absurd claims.
William has three syllables, and a careful speaker sounds them all.
I have heard Americans calling Edinburgh "Edinburrow", with four distinct
syllables. No-one could call that careful. Common usage doesn't establish
what is alone "correct", or this clumsy version would be the right
pronunciation for Scotland's capital and its sovereign's consort's title in
some parts of the USA.
Goodness knows how it might be said by stubborn & dishonest members of the
Hawaiian cult that worships Queen Victoria....
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> William has three syllables, and a careful speaker sounds them all.
>
Dear Gentlemen ~
My son's name is William. I pronounce his name with two syllables.
Occasionally I call him by his full name, William McConnell Richardson.
Then I use all three syllables.
So both pronunciations are correct. Stop your arguing.
Todd A. Farmerie
> I have heard Americans calling Edinburgh "Edinburrow", with four distinct
> syllables. No-one could call that careful. Common usage doesn't establish
> what is alone "correct", or this clumsy version would be the right
> pronunciation for Scotland's capital and its sovereign's consort's title in
> some parts of the USA.
In this regard, it doesn't help that in Pennsylvania there is a town of
Edinboro, as well as a local University of the same name, correctly
pronounced as you have described.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."
Peter M. Stewart
---------------------------
Hilarious!
So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.
Ridiculous!
Hoist With His Own Petar!
Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.
Deeeeeelightful!
Peter Stewart
> "It is pronounced as two syllables, "Will-yum", by most Britons, but as
> three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."
>
> Peter M. Stewart
> ---------------------------
>
> Hilarious!
>
> So, _ipso facto_, PMS holds that MOST BRITONS are CARELESS SPEAKERS.
>
> Ridiculous!
>
> Hoist With His Own Petar!
>
> Condemned Out Of His Own Mouth.
Rubbish - this is not even controversial much less condemnatory.
Most speakers of most languages are careless of niceties, and that is
why pronunciation develops over time. How do you suppose the vowel
shift ever came about if everybody had been carefully enunciating every
word?
But of course this is just a smokescreen put up by the cowardly Hines:
his original folly was to INSIST that there are just TWO syllables in
William available to be pronounced. Now he implicitly acknowledges that
there are THREE after all, but he can't bring himself to withdraw the
juvenile insults that he cast about before he realised this.
Pathetic, as usual. The argument is not over the fact of pronunciation
but rather the theory of scansion. Even Richardson has the sense to see
that neither "Will-yum" nor "Will-i-um" is actually claimed by anyone
now to be wrong. Hines started out from the position that "Will-i-um"
must be wrong, and now he has changed his tune.
> Deeeeeelightful!
>
> PRATFALL!!!
>
> KAWHOMP!!!
>
> KERSPLAT!!!
>
> How about MOST CANADIANS?
>
> MOST AUSTRALIANS?
>
> MOST SOUTH AFRICANS?
>
> Are they CARELESS SPEAKERS too?
Yes of course they are, and there is no shame or obloquy in it - daily
speaking is not performed carefully by most peope in most countries,
but there are some more careful speakers everywhere who say
"Will-i-um", some intermediate speakers who say "Will-i-yum", and many
careless of the syllabic count who say "Will-yum". The variance is a
matter of individual practice and care, but not of right and wrong.
By the way, it occurs to me that the second -i in William might have
been an affectation - if so, one of many - in the 14th century. I'm not
sure about this, but I have come across a few instances of "Willielmus"
in Latin from that time and can't at the moment recall any from earlier
documents.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>
> > I have heard Americans calling Edinburgh "Edinburrow", with four distinct
> > syllables. No-one could call that careful. Common usage doesn't establish
> > what is alone "correct", or this clumsy version would be the right
> > pronunciation for Scotland's capital and its sovereign's consort's title in
> > some parts of the USA.
Todd Farmerie replied:
> In this regard, it doesn't help that in Pennsylvania there is a town of
> Edinboro, as well as a local University of the same name, correctly
> pronounced as you have described.
Yes, many Scots effectively sound four syllables when saying
"Edinburgh" too (although due to the accent this is different from
"-burrow"), but no-one could say that the name actually HAS four
syllables. This is the point about speaking vs scansion that Hines
didn't understand at first, and now won't admit.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."
Peter M. Stewart
-------------------------------
Hilarious!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
Peter Stewart is determined to make a fool of himself again by saying
all the hundreds of millions of English-speaking folks all over the
Globe who say "WILLYUM" instead of "Will-i-um" -- as PMS insists they
should be saying -- if they were "careful" -- are designated by Stewart
as "careless speakers".
Peter Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.
Best laugh I've had all month.
Peter Stewart
that by ignoring the facts, and his initial mistake that even he has now
abandoned, and by simply repeating this distorted tripe, somehow he will
scrape out of the mess he made for himself.
Once again: I did NOT say that anyone "should" be pronouncing any word or
name, including William, in any particular way. I did NOT say that careful
enunciation of syllables is necessary, or creditable, or that carelessly
eliding them is wrong or discreditable. Quite obviously it must be to a
degree careful to speak with precision, sounding every syllable in a word
clearly, just as it must be to a degree careless not to speak precisely. It
may be described as careless to say "can't" instead of "cannot", but that is
neither here nor there as to the correctness of the elided version. The
second -i in William is unnecessary fropm the origin of the name, but it IS
there and it IS a vowel, not a consonant. Willyum is NOT the name.
To find something "hilarious" in this straightforward observation, while
failing to retract his absurd & wrong jibes, is feeble & gutless of Hines -
but then, what's new?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oS_2f.34$Su....@eagle.america.net...
D. Spencer Hines
three syllables, "Will-i-um" by careful speakers."
Peter M. Stewart
-------------------------------
Hilarious!
Veronique, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
Peter Stewart is determined to make a fool of himself again by saying
all the hundreds of millions of English-speaking folks all over the
Globe who say "WILLYUM" instead of "Will-i-um" -- as PMS insists they
should be saying -- if they were "careful" -- are designated by Stewart
as "careless speakers".
Hines has not "abandoned" anything and continues to point out precisely
what he did from the beginning.
Insisting that "WILLIAM" is "tri-syllabic" as Stewart does and that
anyone who pronounces it as "WILLYAM" or "WILLYUM" is being sloppy and
careless, is a non-starter -- risibly so.
But such risible opinions are SOP with Stewart -- demonstrating his
bollixed judgement -- but making him VERY FUNNY.
Stewart continues to do his back and fill -- tail firmly between legs --
particularly since I swatted him across the hindquarters with this
rolled up Wall Street Journal I have in my hand.
In his embarrassed, whining confusion, he is even capable of posting New
Gibberish such as this gem:
"It may be described as careless to say "can't" instead of "cannot", but
that is neither here nor there as to the correctness of the elided
version."
Peter M. Stewart -- Designated SGM Fool & Joker.
Peter Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.
Best laughs I've had all month -- and they just keep on coming.
How Sweet It Is!
Peter Stewart
into the noisome dayne of falsehood that he dug for himself over this
matter.
Of course William must be tri-syllabic, as it has three syllables. Hines
rejected this outright at first, and later acknowledged it, but now has
moronically gone back to pretending that this indisputable fact is somehow
"risible" and a "non-starter", without explaining why. Patently he has NOT
continued to say the same thing about this throughout the thread, but has
erratically tried to cover his own tracks by lying about my views.
However, he has been more consistent in his deliberate misrepresentation of
my statements. He won't engage in a logical chain of thought about the
observations on careful and careless pronunciation of syllables, but instead
reads a load of his own tripe into other people's words and then idiotically
persists in claiming that they had said so.
This craziness is evidently a panic reaction: Hines has probably prided
himself on aping the speech of the British royal family that he adores, but
having a clod's ear he doesn't actually pick up the finer points of
elocution. When the queen says "William", Hines hears "Willyum" - this is a
common enough problem of pretentious oafs who lack acute and educated
senses. I heard another such fool just yesterday, discoursing about "coral"
music, rhyming the first syllable with that of "horror" as if the singing
came from a marine reef, when he meant "choral", rhyming with "floral", as
sung by choirs, since he couln't tell the difference between the sounds
"-orr" and "-or" even though the people he wanted to impress were saying
this clearly.
Well, there's no fool like an arrogant liar who won't listen....
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0mc3f.50$Su....@eagle.america.net...
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129154870.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> senses. I heard another such fool just yesterday, discoursing about
>> "coral"
>> music, rhyming the first syllable with that of "horror" as if the singing
>> came from a marine reef, when he meant "choral", rhyming with "floral",
>> as
>> sung by choirs, since he couln't tell the difference between the sounds
>> "-orr" and "-or" even though the people he wanted to impress were saying
>> this clearly.
>
> "coral" nor "choral" is actually spelled with a double r, are they?
> Must be some ultra-posh way of speaking.
>
> Like the queen, with her high-pitched squeaking, is any model of a
> sensible way to talk.
>
> What a bunch of affected nitwits you must have for friends!
This has nothing whatsoever to do with my friends - the people I heard were
talking on the RADIO. Are you EVER capable of being sensible, or keeping
quiet about things you can know NOTHING about?
Or was this just another ignorant "feeling" that you thought worth sharing
with the newsgroup?
If you can't tell the difference between "coral" and "choral", even when
this is set out for you, LOOK THESE WORDS UP IN A DICTIONARY. This is what
Hines resolutely won't do with William in an Oxford dictionary, to see how
careful British speakers are likely to pronounce it.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>> This has nothing whatsoever to do with my friends - the people I heard
>> were
>> talking on the RADIO. Are you EVER capable of being sensible, or keeping
>> quiet about things you can know NOTHING about?
>
> like trashing and taunting people on the Internet).
What on earth do you think you are talking about now? This only shows again
that you know NOTHING about the matter, or about me and my social habits:
listening to the radio can be done in company every bit as easily as alone,
an in this case took place in a car with another person on the way to lunch
with several others.
Your twisted fantasies about me and my life are too sick and inaccurate to
be decently shared with others - you would do far better to keep your
perversion solitary & secret.
Your lack of the most basic ability to anaylse what you read and come to
sensible conclusions is of course fatal for any pretension on your part to
skill in genealogy, and your exposure of that sorry fact is the ONLY value
in your futile and deeply stupid posts.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
news:E6g3f.16238$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| If you can't tell the difference between "coral" and "choral", even
| when this is set out for you, LOOK THESE WORDS UP
| IN A DICTIONARY.
------------------------------------
Hilarious!
There he goes again!
PMS, when he finds himself in a deep, dark, dank, foetid hole of his own
digging, just never knows when to stop.
Millions of people in America pronounce _CORAL_ and _CHORAL_ precisely
the same way -- no differences -- and they are certainly not careless or
sloppy speakers.
Sometimes Peter's Arrogant-Ignorance surprises even ME -- and I've been
watching his mental and emotional deterioration for YEARS.
Peter Stewart
ignorance and parade this for all to see. Comments interspersed:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZeH3f.64$rT....@eagle.america.net...
> "Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:E6g3f.16238$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> | If you can't tell the difference between "coral" and "choral", even
> | when this is set out for you, LOOK THESE WORDS UP
> | IN A DICTIONARY.
> ------------------------------------
>
> Hilarious!
>
> There he goes again!
>
> PMS, when he finds himself in a deep, dark, dank, foetid hole of his own
> digging, just never knows when to stop.
Who do you think your preposterous bluff about hilarity can be fooling,
Hines? All readers here know perfectly well that you are not actually
laughing at your own humiliation. Logical thinking is obviously not a talent
of yours, but surely anyone would realise that your attempts at controversy
ALWAYS end up in a heap of embarrassment.
> Millions of people in America pronounce _CORAL_ and _CHORAL_ precisely
> the same way -- no differences -- and they are certainly not careless or
> sloppy speakers.
This is utterly irrelevant to my point, which was about an Australian
speaking to an Australian audience interested in choral music, who know very
well that this does not come from coral reefs.
Millions of Americans say "tom-aydo" for what Australians call a "tom-arto",
and if a gardening expert on the radio here gave tips to his countrymen on
growing "tom-aydoes" he would be laughed to scorn. Millions of Americans
might look up the words "choral" and "coral" in Funk & Wagnell to see how
these words may be pronounced alike or differently. Each is acceptable in
the USA - that is how pronunciation develops, as I've tried to explain to
Hines from the start. The received pronunciation of any word at any time is
not obligatory for any speaker. There is no enforcement of rules.
The panic attack Hines is having about William is misguided. No-one has told
him or anyone else how they ought to say the name, but only how many
syllables it has that a careful (i.e. conventional & precise) speaker will
enunciate. Someone who took extreme care over this might actually say
"Will-i-am" with all the vowels distinct, rather than the usual "Will-i-um"
or "Will-uym". Could anyone say this idiosyncrasy is wrong? Of course not:
care is not "right" and carelessness is not "wrong" - this rigidity is
merely a figment of distressed imagination in Hines, not a statement made by
me.
The queen of Australia pronounces the name of this realm with four distinct
syllables, "Or-stra-li-a". Most of her Australian subjects call themselves
"Os-tra-lyun", sounding only three syllables. Neither she nor they feel a
compulsion to say the other must be wrong, but no-one is in any doubt who
says the word more and who less carefully. In the extreme, some people call
themselves "Stra-yun", pronouncing just two syllables, and some who plainly
care more for their nationality than for their language even voice only one
syllable, "Strine". No dictionary could as yet give this as the received
pronuniation, but who can predetermine the future sound of a word? Equally,
someone named William may choose to call himself "Wilm", and no-one else can
gainsay this. But they can say he is asking for a spoken variant of his
given name that would seem careless to most strangers.
> Sometimes Peter's Arrogant-Ignorance surprises even ME -- and I've been
> watching his mental and emotional deterioration for YEARS.
Rubbish - Hines has yet to score a point against me or anyone else in an
argument that I have participated in. He couldn't produce a single example
that was other than a further repetition of his own intransigent stupidity.
When he can't counter an argument he resorts to bluster and
misrepresentation, but we can all see through his crude ploys.
Peter Stewart
Don Stone
> When he can't counter an argument he resorts to bluster and
> misrepresentation, but we can all see through his crude ploys.
Peter,
We seem to be stuck in a situation where two people each are determined to
have the last word, and thus the "Pronunciation Of _William_" thread, now 49
messages, could go on for weeks.
If it really is the case that "we can all see through" the crude ploys of
your opponent, why don't you "sit tight" when the inevitable response to
your most recent message comes? Just let it pass.
-- Don Stone
Ginny Wagner
When did it go from Guilliame to William? Why did it change
from G to W? What were the sounds of each in Latin? Was it
just given names that changed? How about surnames? Thanks,
Ginny
steven perkins
documentary evidence for the change.
Regards,
Steven C. Perkins
--
Steven C. Perkins SCPe...@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~scperkins/
D. Spencer Hines
| fooling, Hines?
Peter M. Stewart [PMS] -- aka Stewart The Illiterate
--------Cordon Sanitaire-----------------------
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
PMS, aka Stewart The Illiterate, proves himself to be not only careless
and sloppy -- but also illiterate as well.
How Sweet It Is!
No, Virginia, _CHORAL_ doesn't have two "r's" -- just a silent "h".
Further, Stewart The Backfiller, after condemning the pronunciation of
_William_ as _WILLYAM_ -- saying to do so is careless and sloppy -- is
now desperately trying to carry out a strategic retreat by backing and
filling and insisting that carelessness and sloppiness are not really
"WRONG" -- just different -- you know, "multi-cultural". Hilarious!
No Sale...
Stewart The Sloppy condemned _WILLYAM_ as careless and sloppy and we'll
hold him to that pig-ignorant, anserine, cunniculan-pygan statement --
no backing and filling -- in a desperate but doomed attempt to crawl
back into his own rectum.
How Sweet It Is!
Pogue Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.
Deus Vult.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
Ginny Wagner
I've begun to wonder lately about Warren/Gorron ... and
Goreham/Boreham. Gorman and O'Gorman, on a website that
traces Cornuille/Corin genealogy, the author mentions family
members actually writing their names as Goram. Ginny