Your Obedient Servant
Robert
obedient servant" in the closing of a letter some time ago, and I am
uncertain as to how it is properly written.
Is there an accepted form of abbreviation for this lovely relic of
genteel correspondence?
Harvey V
In the course of some recent work, I've obtained have copies of
correspondence of 1768 from an architect (Henry Keene), to Sir Roger
Newdigate (who commissioned the work). These have the following forms:
I am Sir Yr most obliged & obedt Servt,
Yr much obliged & obedt Servant
I am Sir Yr obliged & obedt Servant
I am Sir most gratefully & obediently Yr hble Servant
I am Sir most respectfully & obediently Yr Hble Servt
I am Sir most obediently Yr hble Servant
Hope this helps.
(For what it's worth, after a couple of decades of reading such
correspondence it strikes me as being about as far removed as one can
get from a "lovely relic of genteel correspondence": it's ritualistic
forelock-tugging to one's social superiors.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
N.Mitchum
----
> I recall seeing the use of an abbreviated form of the words "Your
> obedient servant" in the closing of a letter some time ago, and I am
> uncertain as to how it is properly written.
>
> Is there an accepted form of abbreviation for this
Yr Obdt Servt
----NM
Irwell
a variant used to be. I am sir,your very obedient servant.
Steve Hayes
Yr obdt svt.
with the last letter as a superscript.
At this point most of the genealogy newsgroups embark on a Jno thread.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Harvey V
>> Is there an accepted form of abbreviation for this lovely relic
>> of genteel correspondence?
>
> Yr obdt svt.
> with the last letter as a superscript.
> At this point most of the genealogy newsgroups embark on a Jno
> thread.
I suspect such threads are an acquired taste.....
(My immediate reading of "hble" in the architect's letters I quoted was
that this was short for "honorable", but it undoubtedly was "humble".
A slight difference, shall we say.)
Matti Lamprhey
>
> Yr obdt svt.
>
> with the last letter as a superscript.
>
> At this point most of the genealogy newsgroups embark on a Jno thread.
I've been researching "Jno", and have most definitively concluded:
1) It's short for John/Johannes
2) Nobody, but nobody, has the first clue as to why the letters are
scrambled.
Matti
Skitt
Would it be very genteel to abbreviate such a lovely relic? It makes one
wonder ...
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Mike Lyle
I think it's a case of a conventional handwriting flourish being put
into printed form as a similar-looking letter: "Rx", discussed here
recently, is the same; there are others, including, ISTR, "No" for
"Number", and others I don't recall off-hand.
Mike.
Harvey V
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in
> message news:<b20k3u$17621b$1...@ID-103223.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote...
-snip-
>>> At this point most of the genealogy newsgroups embark on a Jno
>>> thread.
>>
>> I've been researching "Jno", and have most definitively
>> concluded: 1) It's short for John/Johannes
>> 2) Nobody, but nobody, has the first clue as to why the letters
>> are scrambled.
>
> I think it's a case of a conventional handwriting flourish being
> put into printed form as a similar-looking letter:
I'm not sure that's the case.
I've certainly seen "Jno" in 19th-century handwritten entries (letters,
tithe awards, etc.) where all three letters were very clearly written
and no printing process was involved.
Matti Lamprhey
> Mike Lyle wrote...
> > "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote...
> >>
> >> I've been researching "Jno", and have most definitively
> >> concluded: 1) It's short for John/Johannes
> >> 2) Nobody, but nobody, has the first clue as to why the letters
> >> are scrambled.
> >
> > I think it's a case of a conventional handwriting flourish being
> > put into printed form as a similar-looking letter:
>
> I'm not sure that's the case.
>
> I've certainly seen "Jno" in 19th-century handwritten entries
> (letters, tithe awards, etc.) where all three letters were very
> clearly written and no printing process was involved.
You may both be right -- this article may be relevant:
http://www.serv.net/~camel/wodehouse/jno.html
Matti
Harvey V
> "Harvey V" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote...
>> Mike Lyle wrote...
>>> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote...
>>>> I've been researching "Jno", and have most definitively
>>>> concluded: 1) It's short for John/Johannes
>>>> 2) Nobody, but nobody, has the first clue as to why the letters
>>>> are scrambled.
>>>
>>> I think it's a case of a conventional handwriting flourish being
>>> put into printed form as a similar-looking letter:
-snip-
>> I've certainly seen "Jno" in 19th-century handwritten entries
>> (letters, tithe awards, etc.) where all three letters were very
>> clearly written and no printing process was involved.
>
> You may both be right -- this article may be relevant:
> http://www.serv.net/~camel/wodehouse/jno.html
The article is, I think, on sound ground in saying that the printed
"Jno" comes from a capital J with two superscript letters, but my point
was that the misordered letters existed in the superscript (and thus
predated the printing convention).
For what it's worth, I have no problem with that article replying "Why
not?" to the question of "Why abbreviate 'John'?" -- lots of short
words and names ("your"; "Henry") are abbreviated in manuscripts.
It's not a good response, though to the second question -- "Why switch
the letters around?" -- as one only seems to find it with "John". (I'd
be happier with a "so what?" response if we saw it elsewhere -- say if
"Fkd" was used for "Frederick", "Frsa" for "Francis", or "Thso" for
"Thomas".)
Richard Maurer
I've been researching "Jno", and have most definitively concluded:
1) It's short for John/Johannes
2) Nobody, but nobody, has the first clue as to why the letters are
scrambled.
<< [Matti Lamprhey]
[...] this article may be relevant:
http://www.serv.net/~camel/wodehouse/jno.html
[end quote] >>
I always assumed it was an abbreviation for
"Jonothan" or "Johnothan".
It only needed to be the common spelling in a certain influential area
at a certain time, then it could spread to other areas
even if they used the "Johnathan" spelling.
And why not from Jano or Janos? How far back are we talking?
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N.Mitchum
----
> I always assumed it ["Jno"] was an abbreviation for
> "Jonothan" or "Johnothan".
> It only needed to be the common spelling in a certain influential area
> at a certain time, then it could spread to other areas
> even if they used the "Johnathan" spelling.
I recall looking up "Jno" in the dictionary and discovering that
it was used in the Bible. Presumably that would be the King James
Bible of around 1600, which tells us the abbreviation was in use
at least that far back.
----NM
andrew
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fa4d950.03020...@posting.google.com...
"No." has nothing to do with handwriting: it's from Latin numero.
> Mike.