Morag vs Sarah
Barnaby
mean? Do the two words stem from the same root (like, say, John and Ivan)?
In what sense is it "the Gaelic for" Sarah?
connochies
Barnaby <barn...@hotmail.naespam.com> wrote in message
news:9qjtju$9i$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk...
Our "Collins Book of Names" gives Morag simply as "a Scottish name from the
Irish and Gaelic 'Mor' meaning tall" It gives Sarah as from the Hebrew
for 'Princess' and associates it with the Irish names 'Sorcha' and 'Saraid.'
However I do have another book, admittedly a trashy touristy one, which
gives the Gaelic equivilant of Sarah as Mor...so there seems to be some
confusion!
Allan
>
>
Brian C
Morag - Sarah? Morag does look very gaelic in *origin* as the other poster
said.
Mor/Mór is a big thing in gaelic AFAIK, and I could easily believe that
to be a truly home grown name. Google gives a believable
'Morag = great' on http://www.cfimages.com/Baby/Names/girlsm.html
cos thats the spirit of 'Mor'.
Sarah is I think hebrew / old testamentish in origin or such.
Just to confuse you a quick google search says
'Morag means the same as Sheila = blind', though I think thats
utter bollocks..:)
(http://www.20000-names.com/female_gaelic_names.htm)
The net is of course full of unsubstantiated black and white bollocks text
made up or repeated from nameless rumour mongers. Like me.;)
(Oh and I believe gaelic for John is Iain, a bit like Ivan, and that was
from
a more reputable source than me making it up;))
ZsaZsa
Barnaby
"Brian C" <JustUs...@spamless.net> wrote in message
news:Q6qz7.546$0q4.7444@news1-hme0...
And "Sean" as well - or is that just Irish?
Barnaby
"ZsaZsa" <re...@ng.org> wrote in message
news:h%rz7.29765$YL3.7...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
OK, that says that "Sarah" is the English equivalent of the Gaelic "Morag".
But in what sense is it equivalent? Names don't have meaning (yes, OK, I
know that Sarah was Hebrew for "princess", but it's meaningless in English).
If you can trace the etymology back, and show that the two names share a
common root (as in Ivan / John / Sean etc), then I can see that it would
make sense - the words are cognates. But Sarah and Morag aren't cognates in
that sense.
It seems to me to be a bit like saying that "bloin" is the French for
"cring".
Is this maybe to do with the Highland habit of adopting classical names when
speaking English? I seem to recall a debate about "Hector" being the name
adopted by Gaels called "Eachan" when in English-speaking company, because
the Gaelic version was considered too strange or whatever. Did women called
"Morag" say their name was "Sarah" when in English-speaking company? Was
there any reason for this choice of name?
Where's Micheil when you need him...
Sharon L. Krossa
When books (or people) say that one name "is the Gaelic for" a second
name what they really mean is the first name is associated with the
second name, and sometimes this is even though the two names are
completely unrelated linguisticly.
From the Middle Ages (until quite recently), it was common to
"translate" or transform a name to suit the language being used. So, for
example, when speaking in English one would talk about "John" and
"Peter", but when speaking French John would become "Jean" and Peter
would become "Pierre".
This was also done with Gaelic names when speaking English and English
names when speaking Gaelic. However, for a lot of Gaelic and English
names there isn't a true equivelent in the other language. But very
often some unrelated English name would become associated with a Gaelic
name. For example, in a 16th century contemporary translation of a 16th
century Gaelic document, the Gaelic name "Gille Easpaig" was translated
into Scots as "Archibald", an unrelated name. (And just generally men
who show up in Scots/English language documents as "Archibald" show up
in Gaelic documents as "Gille Easpaig".)
At some stage (probably sometime in the 18th-19th centuries) the Gaelic
name "Morag" came to be associated with English "Sarah" (at least in
Scotland) -- which really just means that women who were called "Morag"
in Gaelic went by "Sarah" in English (and vice versa). Other than people
using them as pseudo-equivelents in this way, the two names are
unrelated -- they derive from different languages & cultures and from
different root words with different meanings.
Why in particular <Morag> is associated with <Sarah> is, however, a
mystery. Sometimes the association of otherwise unrelated names was
because of similar sounds involved (as with <Ruadhri> and <Roderick>),
sometimes it was through false etymologies (as with <Gille Easpaig>
'servant/devotee of (the/a) Bishop' and <Archibald>, where the <arch>
was associated with bishops and the <bald> was associated with being a
devotee, even though in fact bishops and devotees have no real
connection to <Archibald>). But sometimes there just isn't any clear
reason why two names came to be popularly associated -- they just did.
Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
Brian C
> > http://www.gillean.com/Roots/gaelname.htm#M
>
> OK, that says that "Sarah" is the English equivalent of the Gaelic
"Morag".
> But in what sense is it equivalent? Names don't have meaning (yes, OK, I
> know that Sarah was Hebrew for "princess", but it's meaningless in
English).
> If you can trace the etymology back, and show that the two names share a
> common root (as in Ivan / John / Sean etc), then I can see that it would
> make sense - the words are cognates. But Sarah and Morag aren't cognates
in
> that sense.
>
> It seems to me to be a bit like saying that "bloin" is the French for
> "cring".
>
> Is this maybe to do with the Highland habit of adopting classical names
when
> speaking English? I seem to recall a debate about "Hector" being the name
> adopted by Gaels called "Eachan" when in English-speaking company, because
> the Gaelic version was considered too strange or whatever. Did women
called
> "Morag" say their name was "Sarah" when in English-speaking company? Was
> there any reason for this choice of name?
>
for a name in different books, different web sites etc. Just cos
one site says that, doesn't really convince me of anything. It's like
Chinese whispers..
Whats in a name anyway?
I think it's the people who chose it that get to decide. If they chose
Morag cos they thought it meant 'great', then *that's* what it means.
If it means 'Sarah', as I've also read, then fair enough, if
*that's* what the parent intended. Just cos someone is waving a book
that says different doesn't make much odds. For instance Ya Bas *is*
short for Ya Bastard, if that's what people understand it to be,
and some contrived gaelic description from accademia is largely
irrelevant!
Perhaps it's easier in chinese cultures, where they use real words AFAIK,
like descriptions. At least a chinese guy once told me that..;)
And of course the chinese often give themselves western names, perhaps
after film stars - for the reasons you indicate above - acceptance /
pronunciation.
Clan MacLeod Society - Sally Smith
>> OK, that says that "Sarah" is the English equivalent of the Gaelic
>"Morag".
>> But in what sense is it equivalent? Names don't have meaning (yes, OK, I
>> know that Sarah was Hebrew for "princess", but it's meaningless in
Morag means princess, thus the correspondence. (Lit. something like
"young female ruling-class person")
Sally
(wot's a form of Sarah)
--
Sally Smith, webmaster for the Clan MacLeod Societies, mac...@best.com
http://www.clan-macleod.com
Disclaimer: unless stated, the above posting is entirely my own opinion
Sharon L. Krossa
> >> OK, that says that "Sarah" is the English equivalent of the Gaelic
> >"Morag".
> >> But in what sense is it equivalent? Names don't have meaning (yes, OK, I
> >> know that Sarah was Hebrew for "princess", but it's meaningless in
>
> Morag means princess, thus the correspondence. (Lit. something like
> "young female ruling-class person")
[Note -- I've ignored accents in the following...]
<Morag> is a diminutive of the Gaelic given name <Mor>, and the Gaelic
given name <Mor> derived from the Gaelic word it looks exactly like --
<mor> 'big, great'. Thus, <Morag> does not mean 'princess' nor is it
derived from any word meaning 'princess'. Rather, it is a name with the
etymological meaning of "Biggie".
See my other post for a discussion of associated unrelated Gaelic and
English names. It is certainly possible that in the past others have
come to the same false conclusion that <Morag> and <Sarah> "mean" the
same thing, so this may explain why these two unrelated names have
become associated. Or it could just be a mystery why they came to be
associated.
Note that given names don't really have meanings beyond indicating this
person or that person with the given name -- they only derive from words
and roots that had meanings. But the "meaning" of a given name is to
point to a person who bears the name, and nothing more.
Bryn Fraser
L. Krossa <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> carefully and thoughtfully
licked their quill and wrote the following:
>Clan MacLeod Society - Sally Smith <mac...@best.com> wrote:
>
>> >> OK, that says that "Sarah" is the English equivalent of the Gaelic
>> >"Morag".
>> >> But in what sense is it equivalent? Names don't have meaning (yes, OK, I
>> >> know that Sarah was Hebrew for "princess", but it's meaningless in
>>
>> Morag means princess, thus the correspondence. (Lit. something like
>> "young female ruling-class person")
>
>[Note -- I've ignored accents in the following...]
>
><Morag> is a diminutive of the Gaelic given name <Mor>, and the Gaelic
>given name <Mor> derived from the Gaelic word it looks exactly like --
><mor> 'big, great'. Thus, <Morag> does not mean 'princess' nor is it
>derived from any word meaning 'princess'. Rather, it is a name with the
>etymological meaning of "Biggie".
LOL I love it... :)
>
>See my other post for a discussion of associated unrelated Gaelic and
>English names. It is certainly possible that in the past others have
>come to the same false conclusion that <Morag> and <Sarah> "mean" the
>same thing, so this may explain why these two unrelated names have
>become associated. Or it could just be a mystery why they came to be
>associated.
>
>Note that given names don't really have meanings beyond indicating this
>person or that person with the given name -- they only derive from words
>and roots that had meanings. But the "meaning" of a given name is to
>point to a person who bears the name, and nothing more.
>
>Sharon
Bryn Fraser
Please remember these Fraser's who lost their
lives in the WTC/NY, Sept 11th 2001.
Colleen Fraser
Last Known Location: UA Flight 93
Richard Fraser
Last Known Location: World Trade Center
Richard K. Fraser
Last Known Location: World Trade Center
Barnaby
"Sharon L. Krossa" <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
news:1f1fpzo.1oeuvau18l2mtkN%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
Cheers, Sharon!
the wean
> > "Barnaby" <barn...@hotmail.naespam.com> wrote in message
> > news:9qjtju$9i$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk...
> > > Someone told me recently that Morag was the Gaelic for Sarah. What
does
> > this
> > > mean? Do the two words stem from the same root (like, say, John and
> Ivan)?
> > > In what sense is it "the Gaelic for" Sarah?
> > >
> > You might want to take a look at this link
> > http://www.gillean.com/Roots/gaelname.htm#M
>
> "Morag" say their name was "Sarah" when in English-speaking company? Was
> there any reason for this choice of name?
>
the family!
>
>
>
>
Synapse
Richard Kaulfuss
L. Krossa) wrote:
>Barnaby <barn...@hotmail.naespam.com> wrote:
>
>> Someone told me recently that Morag was the Gaelic for Sarah. What does this
>> mean? Do the two words stem from the same root (like, say, John and Ivan)?
>> In what sense is it "the Gaelic for" Sarah?
>
>When books (or people) say that one name "is the Gaelic for" a second
>name what they really mean is the first name is associated with the
>second name, and sometimes this is even though the two names are
>completely unrelated linguisticly.
>
>From the Middle Ages (until quite recently), it was common to
>"translate" or transform a name to suit the language being used. So, for
>example, when speaking in English one would talk about "John" and
>"Peter", but when speaking French John would become "Jean" and Peter
>would become "Pierre".
>
I'm not sure if this point is related to the previous one, Sharon, but if so, it's a bad
example. Each of these name pairs derives from Greek (or earlier) roots so there
is a definite linguistic relationship.There is no arbitrariness about their assignment.
>This was also done with Gaelic names when speaking English and English
>names when speaking Gaelic. However, for a lot of Gaelic and English
>names there isn't a true equivelent in the other language. But very
>often some unrelated English name would become associated with a Gaelic
>name. For example, in a 16th century contemporary translation of a 16th
>century Gaelic document, the Gaelic name "Gille Easpaig" was translated
>into Scots as "Archibald", an unrelated name. (And just generally men
>who show up in Scots/English language documents as "Archibald" show up
>in Gaelic documents as "Gille Easpaig".)
>
That's interesting. When (and why) did the anglicized form "Gillespie"
come into common use?
--
Dick
Sharon L. Krossa
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:19:38 GMT, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu (Sharon
> L. Krossa) wrote:
>
> >Barnaby <barn...@hotmail.naespam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone told me recently that Morag was the Gaelic for Sarah. What does
> >> this mean? Do the two words stem from the same root (like, say, John
> >> and Ivan)? In what sense is it "the Gaelic for" Sarah?
> >
> >When books (or people) say that one name "is the Gaelic for" a second
> >name what they really mean is the first name is associated with the
> >second name, and sometimes this is even though the two names are
> >completely unrelated linguisticly.
> >
> >From the Middle Ages (until quite recently), it was common to
> >"translate" or transform a name to suit the language being used. So, for
> >example, when speaking in English one would talk about "John" and
> >"Peter", but when speaking French John would become "Jean" and Peter
> >would become "Pierre".
> >
> I'm not sure if this point is related to the previous one, Sharon, but
> if so, it's a bad example. Each of these name pairs derives from Greek
> (or earlier) roots so there is a definite linguistic relationship.There
> is no arbitrariness about their assignment.
Yes -- that was my point. (Sorry that I wasn't clearer.) There are pairs
of names that are true equivilents of one another in different
languages. John is the English form of French Jean and vice versa --
they both derive from the Latin Johannes, which probably derives from
something even earlier. Gaelic-English name pairs of this type would
include Eoin and John, Donnchadh and Duncan, Uilleam and William,
Alasdair and Alexander, Domhnall and Donald, etc. This is a different
category of associated names than what I discussed in the rest of the
post (where names that are not related in this way are treated as if
they were).
> >This was also done with Gaelic names when speaking English and English
> >names when speaking Gaelic. However, for a lot of Gaelic and English
> >names there isn't a true equivelent in the other language. But very
> >often some unrelated English name would become associated with a Gaelic
> >name. For example, in a 16th century contemporary translation of a 16th
> >century Gaelic document, the Gaelic name "Gille Easpaig" was translated
> >into Scots as "Archibald", an unrelated name. (And just generally men
> >who show up in Scots/English language documents as "Archibald" show up
> >in Gaelic documents as "Gille Easpaig".)
> >
> That's interesting. When (and why) did the anglicized form "Gillespie"
> come into common use?
I don't know when, that is, when as a given name. (Transformation of
surnames was often quite different from transformation of given names.
For example, in the late 16th century a Gael named Eoin mac Eoin might
show up in Scots as Johnne Macane, with the two Eoin's in the Gaelic
name being treated quite differently in Scots.) But as for why -- how
names were thought of changed over time, and also in this case knowledge
would be a factor. People who were not familiar with Gaelic (and not
familiar with the Archibald thing) might be more inclined to use a
straight phonetic rendering.
Also, traditions change. It used to be universal to transform names
depending on language, but these days (at least in the Western English
speaking nations) we tend to use the same form of the name regardless of
language. So <Pierre> the Frenchman is called <Pierre> in English, too,
and so on. Add to this people who have used a name like Gille Easpaig in
their family for generations, but who are not literate in Gaelic (or
even speak Gaelic anymore), and they are likely to use a phonetic
spelling rather than using Gaelic Gille Easpaig.
Of course, some people with the given name Gillespie got it from the
surname, not from the Gaelic given name -- a whole different kettle of
fish (and also relatively modern).
But, as indicated, I can't say exactly when things started to change for
Gille Easpaig/Gillespie, except to say it was in the last few hundred
years (after 1600), possibly the last century or so.