ε#5470. Ѹˤ뿦Ȥɽ魯 by-name μ갷 ([2024-04-18-1]) ³ꡥѸο by-name ʬDZƶϤΤñФ Fransson ˤȡƱʬ椹յ¿ˤ錄 (18--19)
The value of an investigation such as the present one is manifold. Besides explaining modern surnames, as has already been mentioned, it gives us many new words not previously found and furthermore early and often numerous instances of other common or rare words. By means of these early examples new light is not seldom thrown on the etymology, and the signification may sometimes be altered. In contradistinction to the literature of this period, the time and the place of the occurrence of each instance of a surname are well fixed, and thus the material gives a contribution to Middle English phonology. This material has hitherto not been used by linguists, but it is of the greatest value for the determination of the extension of the different dialects, as the same word can be followed in the different parts of England; there is hardly any other material that can be compared with that of surnames in this respect. --- The distribution is also shown not only of surnames, but also of the various names that a trade may have; the case is that a trade often had different names in different parts of England. Last, but not least, the civilization of this period is elucidated; we are informed what trades existed, how common they were in relation to each other, in what parts of England they flourished, and how specialized they were.
ޤȤȼ7
by-name
ȯ뤤ϤǤΤƤʸȯ
̤ơ츻ޤ뤳Ȥ
λȾ꤬ʬäƤΤǡѸβ˴Ϳ
Ʊ̾ۤʤ˸ΤǡѸ˻
Ʊο̾ۤʤϰǰۤʤƤФΤǡϤѸ˹
οʸ餫ˤʤ
ƱʬθϡŪʴ˸¤äƤ⡤嵭Τۤ˷̣ܿ¿Ѿʤɤ˿ʸͿƤȴԤ롥
Fransson, G. Middle English Surnames of Occupation 1100--1350, with an Excursus on Toponymical Surnames. Lund Studies in English 3. Lund: Gleerup, 1935.
#5452. Ѹ̾ˤˤ by-name family name ΰ㤤 ([2024-03-31-1]) ʤɤǼ夲ƤѸ̾ by-name ˸ˤĤơѸ by-name դ봷ȯãƤȤŵŪ̾դΥѥ1Ĥ̾ (occupational terms) ѤΤä̤θϡԤƤϤʤΤΡʤθѤ롥Clark (294--95) ϡ٥ˤ by-name ĴʸΤʤǡʸڤ줿 by-name βˤޤĤ˿Ƥ롥ڵΤޤ뤳ȤɬǤʤͳ¿Ȥ
The simplest of these Canterbury surnames offer supplementary records, mainly antedatings, of straightforward occupational terms. Yet all is not wholly straightforward. To begin with, we cannot be sure whether the occupational terms used in administrative documents were in fact all current as surnames, that is, in daily use among neighbours, or whether some were supplied by the scribes as formal specifiers, just as occupations and addresses are in legal documents of the present day. Nor can we be sure in what form neighbours would have used such terms as they did. With those examples that are latinized --- a proportion varying in the present material from three-quarters to nine-tenths --- scribal intervention is patent, although sometimes reconstruction of the vernacular base seems easy (such forms, and other speculative cases, are cited in square brackets). With those given in a French form matters are more complex. On the one hand, scribes had a general bias away from English and towards French, as though the latter were, as has been said, 'a sort of ignoble substitute for Latin'; therefore, use of a French occupational term guarantees neither its currency in the English speech of the time nor, alternatively, any currency of French outside the scriptorium: in so far as such terms appear neither in literary sources nor as modern surnames MED is justified in excluding them. On the other hand, many 'French' terms were adopted into English very early; use of these would by no means imply currency of French as such, either in the community at large or in the scriptorium itself.
ڵǤطʤ¿ͤȤ櫓ƥե줬ؤäƤǤ롥λǶ̾ʤɤ˵Ƥ̾ϥƥ첽ƤΤ¿Ѹ̾Ϥα˱ƤޤäƤ롥ޤեǽƤ뤳Ȥ¿ο̾ΤΤեͳξ硤줬Ǥ˱ѸƱƤñʤΤȤեñΤޤޤʤΤȽǤ
Ȥɽ魯 by-name ϡ⤽ʸŪ˰ˤǺʤΤǤ롥ơϿȤɽ魯 by-name ˸¤餺Ѹθ̤ͭ̾˴ؤʻǤ⤢롥
Clark, Cecily. "Some Early Canterbury Surnames." English Studies 57.4 (1976): 204--309.
ε#5451. Ѹ˱Ѹ̾Ƴ줿ط (2) ([2024-03-30-1]) ¾εȴ˻ȤäƤѸ̾˾ by-name ȤѸˤĤơҤ٤Ƥ
Ѹ̾ first name, middle name, family name ʤ뤤 last name, surname ʤɤȤˤζ̤Ϥ褯ΤƤ롥ܸüԤˤȤä middle name ̾ˤŪߤfamily name ϡסʾ̾ˡfirst name ϡ̾סʲ̾ˤȤơбʪΤ䤹
Ѹ̾ˤʸ̮ˤơä˸űѸѸˤ̾ʸ̮ˤƻȤ by-name ϡʸ̤ˤϡֽऺ̾2Ū̾פۤɤΰ̣Ǥꡤfirst name ǤϼϤ夤դäỤ̄̾Ǥ by-name ϡ family name б뵡ǽäƤȤϤ롥Ūʴϡby-name family name ϰΤȤ̤Ƥۤ褤
ѸˤĤơClark (567) ˼褦
Although this generalised by-naming was what underlay the development of family naming, the two types of system must not be confused; for a by-name works differently from a family name. A by-name is literally descriptive (and therefore often translatable) and, in actual usage, applies only to one specific individual (to say which is not in the least, however, to deny the existence of conventional stocks of such descriptive phrases). It is, therefore, unstable and thus interchangeable with other formulations, as context or even whim might dictate, so that one and the same man might be specified in documents either as 'John son of William' or as 'John the tanner', probably according to whether his inheritance or his trade was in question, and might also perhaps have been known among his cronies as 'John with the beard' . . . . Such literal and shifting descriptions were no more than embryonically onomastic; and some of the more elaborate thirteenth-century formulas, such as Robertus filius Simonis ad crucem de Wytherington, were hardly even that. Yet, by showing how identity was being defined, even these artificial formulas contribute to onomastic history; and they may be supposed to have reflected, albeit distantly, everyday naming practices.
ͤ̾ȤǤȶʸɽˤ顤˷Ƥˤ뤳ȤõƤ
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2. Ed. Olga Fischer. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 542--606.
ɸ˴ؤε#5346. Ѹ˱Ѹ̾Ƴ줿طʡ ([2023-12-16-1]) ȽŤʤʬ¿Clark (566--67) ˽Ѹ "by-name" פƳ뤳ȤˤʤäͳĤҤ٤Ƥ
The most salient contrast between the English personal-name patterns of ca 1100 and those of ca 1300 involves the universalisation of by-naming; for, whereas in tenth- and eleventh-century records by-names scarcely appeared except when needed for distinguishing between individuals of like idionym, late-thirteenth-century documentary practices seldom allowed any baptismal name to stand unqualified. As observed, several convergent causes were at work here: need to compensate for over-reliance on just a few of the baptismal names available, and that at a time when communities were expanding; growth of bureaucracy, and a consequent drive towards onomastic precision; and imitation of the new aristocracy's customs. The precise aetiology of the process is probably undiscoverable, in so far as virtually the only twelfth- and thirteenth-century usages accessible are administrative ones, from which the underlying colloquial ones have to be inferred . . . .
ȼΤ褦ˤʤ
̾褬˸¤Ƥꡤ by-name 䤦ɬפä
ƱΤ礷Ƥʤʤ¿ο̾͡Ƕ̤ɬפޤäˤä
Ū³̾Τ褦ˤʤä
²νоݤȤʤä
Ūʼ˸ŪװӼҲŪװʣŪ˺Ѥơby-name δΩƤäȤȤǤ롥
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2. Ed. Olga Fischer. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 542--606.
̾ץȡ (name_project) ȤδϢǡѸο̾ (personal_name)Ȥ櫓 (last name) "by-name" 뤤 "family name" ˴ؿƤ롥űѸѸˤߤ by-name εϡClark (567) ˤ4ढʤѸ˸¤餺褽Ūʬˡ
(a) familial ones, viz. those defining an individual by parentage, marriage or other tie of kinship
(b) honorific and occupational ones (categories that in practice overlap)
(c) locative ones, viz. those referring to present or former domicile
(d) characteristic ones, often called 'nicknames'
Τ (b) ̾̾̾ȤȤ館뤬Ѹˤ뤳̾ȤƤλѡ by-name ȤžѤ줿ܤƤ롥Ѹο̾¿뤬Clark (570--71) ȤĤġ츻ŪŪʬहȰʲΤ褦ˤʤ
1. եʤ뤤ϥƥ졩ˤμѸ (French loanword)
barber, butcher, carpenter, cordwainer/cordiner, draper, farrier, mason, mercer, tailor; fourbisseur, pestour
2. (native word)
A. ñ (simplex)
cok, herde, smith, webbe, wrighte
B. ʣǸ (complex)ʤʣ
a. ư١
bruere/breuster, heuere, hoppere/hoppestre; bokebynder, bowestrengere, cappmaker, lanternemaker, lymbrenner, medmowere, rentgaderer, sylkthrowster, waterladestre
b. ̾١
bureller, glovere, glasier, madrer, nailere, ropere, skinnere; burelman, candelwif, horseknave, maderman, plougrom, sylkewymman; couherde, swynherde, madermongere, stocfisshmongere, ripreve, bulleward, wodeward, wheelewrighte
Ѹο̾ᤰˤĤƤϡʲ hellog Ǥ夲ƤΤȡ
#590. last name ϤĤ̳Ūˤʤä ([2010-12-08-1])
#2365. ΥޥαѸ̾κѡ ([2015-10-18-1])
#5231. űѸο̾ˤϲȷϤɽ魯 (family name) Ϥʤäɡ ([2023-08-23-1])
#5297. űѸ̾ؤѸηϡ ([2023-10-28-1])
#5338. Ѹ˿̾ˤ⤿餵줿2ĤοȤλ ([2023-12-08-1])
#5346. Ѹ˱Ѹ̾Ƴ줿طʡ ([2023-12-16-1])
#5299. Ѹ̾ؤѸηϡ ([2023-10-30-1])
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2. Ed. Olga Fischer. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 542--606.
̱²̾̾̾Ϥߤ˴ϢΡʸͭ̾̾ (onomastics) Ǥ demonym ethnonym ȸƤФƤ뤬ܲɤ³Ƥ̾ؤΥϥɥ֥åǤϸԤθƾΤѤƤ롥
ϥɥ֥å17ϡKoopman ˤ "Ethnonyms" ƬǤϡѸϪ롥ä "ethnic group" ̱²ˤȤ뤫ʸؾǤꡤ줬ʤ ethnonym ȤѸˤӲФ뤫ǧĤĥɤ߿ʤƤȡɤɤȵ⤷ʤäƤʲΥ٥θФƤмΤ褦ˤʤ롥
17.1 Introduction
17.2 Ethnonyms and Race
17.3 Ethnonyms, Nationality, and Geographical Area
17.4 Ethnonyms and Language
17.5 Ethnonyms and Religion
17.6 Ethnonyms, Clans, and Surnames
17.7 Variations of Ethnonyms
17.7.1 Morphological Variations
17.7.2 Endonymic and Exonymic Forms of Ethnonyms
17.8 Alternative Ethnonyms
17.9 Derogatory Ethnonyms
17.10 'Non-Ethnonyms' and 'Ethnonymic Gaps'
17.11 Summary and Conclusion
Ǹ "Summary and Conclusion" Ѥʬ̥ϤָƤ
In this chapter I have tried to show that while 'ethnonym' is a commonly used term among onomastic scholars, not all regard ethnonyms as proper names. This anomalous status is linked to uncertainties about defining the entity which is named with an ethnonym, with (for example) terms like 'race' and 'ethnic group' being at times synonymous, and at other times part of each other's set of defining elements. Together with 'race' and 'ethnicity', other defining elements have included language, nationality, religion, geographical area, and culture. The links between ethnonyms and some of these elements, such as religion, are both complex and debatable; while other links, such as between ethnonyms and language, and ethnonyms and nationality, produce intriguing onomastic dynamics. Ethnonyms display the same kind of variations and alternatives as can be found for personal names and place-names: morpho-syntactic variations, endonymic and exonymic forms, and alternative names for the same ethnic entity, generally regarded as falling into the general spectrum of nicknames. Examples have been given of the interface between ethnonyms, personal names, toponyms, and glossonyms.
In conclusion, although ethnonyms have an anomalous status among onomastic scholars, they display the same kinds of linguistic, social, and cultural characteristics as proper names generally.
̱²դѸˤĤƤϰʲε⻲ȡ
#1871. ȿͼ ([2014-06-11-1])
#3599. ȿͼ (2) ([2019-03-05-1])
#3706. ̱²ȿͼ ([2019-06-20-1])
#3810. ҲŪʹʪȤƤΡֿͼס ([2019-10-02-1])
ޤethnonym Τ⤷ˤĤƤϡϢ#5118. Japan-ese θꤹ by khelf Ĺ ([2023-05-02-1]) ⻲Ȥ줿
Koopman, Adrian. "Ethnonyms." Chapter 17 of The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming. Ed. Carole Hough. Oxford: OUP, 2016. 251--62.
βƤˡ̾ץȡ (name_project) Ω夲ޤפĤǻϤʤˤ⤢餺ΥץȤǤο֡˱Ѹˤδ̾ (onomastics) ФޤޤޤΰǤǿƱǤ heldio ꥹʡγʤɤȤε̤ơĤ⤷ʬäƤޤʲվޤ
̾ؤδؿκ߽ϸʸȤ˰ۤʤ롥㤨СꥹǤ̾θ츻˴ؿΤФơꥫǤ̾դưؤδؿޤϤˤĤ̾ (hydronymy) ˤĤơꥹΦǤϲ̾ͻоݤˤʤΤФơ̲ϸо̾礿ؿоݤȤʤ
ͭ̾첽 (onymisation) ϰ̸Ūʼġ̾줬ġɤΤ褦ˡʤͭ̾첽Τ
̾ؤˤաʸˤϤˡܸ̾ؤˤƤϤƽפΤ̾ؤǤʸȤιͻŪ
Ѹ̾ˤˤ (last name, family name, surname, by-name) ȯŸӾˤϡɬŪʤΤǤϤʤäȥե쥭֥äȤ¤϶̣
̾ؤϸ¤ʤغŪʬǤ (cf. #5187. ͭ̾ؤΥϥɥ֥å ([2023-07-10-1])#5334. Ѹ̾ؤ֤̤ Cecily Clark ([2023-12-04-1]))#5339. Ѹ̾ؤμϰϤȥȥɡ ([2023-12-09-1])#5343. onomastics ̾ءˤоݤȼ --- Bussmann Ѹ켭ŵ ([2023-12-13-1])ˡ
̾ΤϡҲνŪοŸȤȤ礭ƤƤcf. ʹ֤Υߥ˥ƥͥåȥιꡤߥ˥ѤȯŸĿͼιޤꡤǥƥƥռζٲ̾
Ū̾ͻݤˤϡ1͡1Ĥ̾פȤŪɳդȤƤϤʤޤĤƤϸŪ̾ȻŪ̾ζϤäۣä
ѸˤܿˤȤСѸäˤν̿ޤǤȸ롥¤ϱѸ̾ˤ⡤Ƥν̿ޤǤϤʤѸ̾⡤̾ܿơ㤷դ뤲ƤȤ櫓Ѹ̾̾դΰݻȤ˲η֤ä
ѸޤǤϿ̾ˤˤĤ³ȯۤäϲȷϤǤϤʤĿͤꤹΤŪǤä (heraldry) ˤ̤Ǥ롥
פĤϢͤƤߤޤ줫̾ؤ³Ƥޤ
ɸˤĤƤϡĤ hellog Ǽ夲Ƥ
#590. last name ϤĤ̳Ūˤʤä ([2010-12-08-1])
#2365. ΥޥαѸ̾κѡ ([2015-10-18-1])
#5231. űѸο̾ˤϲȷϤɽ魯 (family name) Ϥʤäɡ ([2023-08-23-1])
#5338. Ѹ˿̾ˤ⤿餵줿2ĤοȤλ ([2023-12-08-1])
Υޥ塤Ѹ̾ (last name, family name, surname, by-name) Ƴ줿طʤȤơŪˤ2ŦƤ롥1Ĥ first name μबꤵ줿̡ǤϸĿͤǤʤʤäȡ⤦1ĤϡǤˡŪ൭ܤ˴ؤŪνŪװǤ롥
⤦1դäʤСΥޥΦǤϡʤʬŪˤϥɤǤˤǤѤ뽬ˤϤäȤ¤ŦƤȤϽפǤ롥嵭ޤᤳդλˤĤơClark (553) ʷƤƤ롥
Patently, such baptismal-name patterns were scarcely adequate for social identification, far less for administrative and legal purposes. By-naming --- that is, supplementation of baptismal names by phrases specifying their bearers in genealogical, residential, occupational or characteristic terms --- became, in England as elsewhere, a general necessity. Such specifying phrases had been in occasional use among English people since well before the Conquest . . . , and all signs are that shrinkage of the name-stock would in any case have soon compelled their general adoption. The Norman Conquest may well, however, have acted as a catalyst to the process, in so far as it brought in a new aristocracy among whom, as is clear not only from Domesday Book but also from the early records surviving from the settlers' homelands in Normandy, France and Flanders, use of by-names, and of territorial ones especially, was already widespread, with even more tentative movements towards family naming . . . . The prestige thus accruing to use of a by-name would hardly have hindered wider adoption of them among the general native population.
ѤκǸˤ̤ꡤ²ѤȤˤ˰ҿ (prestige) Ϳ졤줬̱κѤ¥ȤˤʤäȤҲŪװ⡤⤦1ĤطʤȤƲƤȤǤ롥
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2. Ed. Olga Fischer. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 542--606.
̾ץȡ (name_project) Ω夲طǡonomastics ̾ءͭ̾ءˤĤޤ߿ʤؤǤ롥 Bussmann θѸ켭ŵ onomastics ιƤߤʲ˰ѤʬγפĤǤ
onomastics
Scientific investigation of the origin (development, age, etymology), the meaning, and the geographic distribution of names (⇒ proper noun). Onomastic subdisciplines include anthroponymy (the study of names of bodies of water), and toponymy (the study of geographic place-names), among others. Because place-names and personal names are among the oldest and most transparent linguistic forms, they are an important source of hypotheses about the history of language, dialect geography and language families. More recently, sociolinguistics (name-giving and use in society), psycholinguistics (psycho-onomastics and the physiognomy of names), pragmalinguistics and text linguistics have taken an active interest in onomastics. Onomastics also offers new insights into historical processes (pre- and early history, folklore, among others) as well as geography and natural history.
嵭ΰѤΤʤ "the physiognomy of names" ̾οءפʤɤ¸ߤˤ϶ä椹ʬʤΤ̾ˤޤĤ벻ȥ䡤̾βʤɤޤޤΤʤɤۤߤޤʤ
̾ؤμȤϡ#5187. ͭ̾ؤΥϥɥ֥å ([2023-07-10-1]) #5339. Ѹ̾ؤμϰϤȥȥɡ ([2023-12-09-1]) ǿƤ̤ݥƥϤޤޤȤäƤ
Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Trans. and ed. Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzizi. London: Routledge, 1996.
ȤƤڤ (clipping) ˤĤƤϡ¿εǼ夲ƤȤ櫓Ω줫#893. shortening ʬ (1) ([2011-10-07-1]) ǾܤҲ𤷤
128 Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio) ۿˤ#921. 2023ǯαñϥ --- rizzꤷơclipping ˤ¤Ȥܤǿλ夲
ۿǤϡ2023ǯ Oxford Word of the Year rizz ˷ꤷȤ˥塼줬 charisma clipping ˤû̷Ǥ뤳ȤȤ charisma θ츻Ҳ𤷤
rizz charisma clipping ˤǤ뤳ȤȤơȤñθƬǤǤʤʬڤФ줿û̸Ǥɮͤ롥Τ褦ʸϡۤ¿ʤȸޤ뤫#893. shortening ʬ (1) ([2011-10-07-1]) "Mesonym" Ǽ夲褦ˡ㤬ʤ櫓ǤϤʤϤˤϰ㤤ʤʲβˤ "fore-and-aft clipping" ȸƤǤ褤
heldio ΥꥹʡϢ륳ȡ䤬줿ΤǡȴϢ McArthur αѸѸ켭ŵ "clipping" ѤƤ (223--24)
CLIPPING [1930s in this sense]. Also clipped form, clipped word, shortening. An abbreviation formed by the loss of word elements, usually syllabic: pro from professional, tec from detective. The process is attested from the 16c (coz from cousin 1559, gent from gentleman 1564); in the early 18c, Swift objected to the reduction of Latin mobile vulgus (the fickle throng) to mob. Clippings can be either selective, relating to one sense of a word only (condo is short for condominium when it refers to accommodation, not to joint sovereignty), or polysemic (rev stands for either revenue or revision, and revs for the revolutions of wheels). There are three kinds of clipping:
(1) Back-clippings, in which an element or elements are taken from the end of a word: ad(vertisement), chimp(anzee), deli(catessen), hippo(potamus), lab(oratory), piano(forte), reg(ulation)s. Back-clipping is common with diminutives formed from personal names Cath(erine) Will(iam). Clippings of names often undergo adaptations: Catherine to the pet forms Cathie, Kate, Katie, William to Willie, Bill, Billy. Sometimes, a clipped name can develop a new sense: willie a euphemism for penis, billy a club or a male goat. Occasionally, the process can be humorously reversed: for example, offering in a British restaurant to pay the william.
(2) Fore-clippings, in which an element or elements are taken from the beginning of a word: ham(burger), omni(bus), violon(cello), heli(copter), alli(gator), tele(phone), earth(quake). They also occur with personal names, sometimes with adaptations: Becky for Rebecca, Drew for Andrew, Ginny for Virginia. At the turn of the century, a fore-clipped word was usually given an opening apostrophe, to mark the loss: 'phone, 'cello, 'gator. This practice is now rare.
(3) Fore-and-aft clippings, in which elements are taken from the beginning and end of a word: in(flu)enza, de(tec)tive. This is commonest with longer personal names: Lex from Alexander, Liz from Elizabeth. Such names often demonstrate the versatility of hypocoristic clippings: Alex, Alec, Lex, Sandy, Zander; Eliza, Liz, Liza, Lizzie, Bess, Betsy, Beth, Betty.
Clippings are not necessarily uniform throughout a language: mathematics becomes maths in BrE and math in AmE. Reverend as a title is usually shortened to Rev or Rev., but is Revd in the house style of Oxford University Press. Back-clippings with -ie and -o are common in AusE and NZE: arvo afternoon, journo journalist. Sometimes clippings become distinct words far removed from the applications of the original full forms: fan in fan club is from fanatic; BrE navvy, a general labourer, is from a 19c use of navigator, the digger of a 'navigation' or canal. . . .
McArthur, Tom, ed. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: OUP, 1992.
#5299. Ѹ̾ؤѸηϡ ([2023-10-30-1]) ǡClark ˵äơűѸ줫Ѹˤƿ̾Τ礭ѤäȤǧcf. #5297. űѸ̾ؤѸηϡ ([2023-10-28-1])ˡ(1) ĤƤ "idionym" "baptismal name" ؤƤƤäȡ (2) ץä "by-name" ˸Ū "family name" ؤȯŸƤäȤ2פǤ롥
Ѹ̾οȤ⤤뤳2ѸΤɤΤ餤Υߥ塦ΩΤΤ˽Ҥ٤뤳ȤϤǤʤޤǽȯŸħClark (552) ϡ1ܤ1250ǯ2ܤ1450ǯȤߤƤ롥
This twofold shift in English personal naming was a specifically Middle English process. Among the mass of the population, the name system of ca 1100 was still virtually the classic Late Old English one, modified only by somewhat freer use of ad hoc by-names . . .; but ca 1450 a structure prefiguring the present-day one had been established, with hereditary family names in widespread use, though not yet universally adopted. As for the ousting of pre-Conquest baptismal names by what were virtually the present-day ones, that had been accomplished by ca 1250. This series of changes involved several convergent processes.
绨ĤˤС1ܤοϽѸ (1100--1300) δ֤˸ǤޤäƤ2ܤοϼ˸Ѹ (1300--1500) ȯŸƤäȸŪ̾դ鸽Ū̾դؤѲ濴Ȥʤϡۤܤ줤Ѹ (1100--1500) ȤäƤƤ褤Ȥˤʤ롥
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2. Ed. Olga Fischer. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 542--606.
ǯβƤΩ夲̾ץȡ (name_project) ΰĤȤơ̾ (onomastic) ʸɤൡ¿ʤäƤ롥 hellog Ǥ⡤Clark ȤƸűѸ̾ؤ˴ؤϤƤ
Clark ʸκǸǤ롥Ѹ̾ؤ椷褦Ȼפä顤μȳи礬롤ȤΤȡʡḷȡˤߤƤΤäޤɤǤƱѸ̾ؤؤδؿʲĤ줿ɼԤκǸΤܤˤơ֤䡼פȤʤʤȡ餬ҥҥ䤹ۤɤǤ롥
Because lack of context makes name-etymology especially speculative, any opinion proffered in a survey or a name-dictionary must be considered critically, as basis for further investigation rather than as definitive statement. Anyone wishing to pursue historical name-studies of either sort seriously must, in addition to becoming conversant with the philology of the relevant medieval languages, be able to read Medieval Latin as well as modern French and German. Assessing and interpreting the administrative records that form the main course-material is the essential first step in any onomastic study, and requires understanding of palaeographical and diplomatic techniques; competence in numismatics may on occasion also be needed. Onomastic analysis itself involves not only political, social and cultural history but also, when place-names are concerned, a grasp of cartography, geology, archaeology and agrarian development. Any student suitably trained and equipped will find great scope for making original contributions to this field of study.
ΥѡޥǤʤȱѸ̾ؤθ̳ޤʤ
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1. Ed. Richard M. Hogg. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 452--89.
̾ʸͭ̾ˤ˰̣ΤȤ䤤̾ (onomastics) ɽʤǤ롥Ϣ hellog Ǥ#2212. ͭ̾ϥ˥եʤ˥եǤ ([2015-05-18-1])#5289. ̾˰̣ϤΤ ([2023-10-20-1])#5290. ̾˰̣ϤΤ4Ĥ ([2023-10-21-1]) ʤɤǼ夲Ƥ
ȴϢο⤦1Ĥϡ̾θ°뤫Ȥ䤤Ǥ롥London ϱѸäΰʤΤפܸäΰʤΤJohn ϺפϤɤ̾Ϥɤθˤ°ƤʤȤ⡤٤Ƥθ°ƤȤ뤫⤷ʤcf. #2979. Chibanian ϥƥ졩 ([2017-06-23-1]) ε⻲ȡˡ
ȤСEnglish names ʱѸ̾ˤȤɽ⡤ľˤϼʤ褦˻פ롥 English names ˤĤƤ Coates (331--32) β۲ˤϰʲ̤ꡥ
Talking of English names, as I have just done, raises a whole further problem to which there is no easy answer. What is an English name? A name like that of Athens, Georgia, is an English name in the sense that it was bestowed by English-speakers, and preserved as institutionalised in an English-speaking community. In that sense it is hard to call it a Greek name, whilst (ignoring changes during the transmission of the name via Latin and French to modern English) there is a more obvious sense in which that of Athens, Greece, is Greek. (This is reflected by differential translatability; Athens, Greece, is translatable into French (etc.) whilst Athens, Georgia, is not.) For the purposes of this chapter, I shall define an English name as one coined using English-language material; allowing for the fact that namers make use of borrowed onomastic elements (e.g. in place-names -ville, -burg, in given-names -ine, -ette - see below). But I shall want to mention English-transmitted names such as the Athens just mentioned, at least in passing, because their usage tells us something about the English language during the period in question: namely what the naming strategies of English-speakers were.
I doubt whether the notion 'English name' can ever be made fully coherent, and still embrace all the names bestowed by English-speakers and used in an English-language context; but the above will serve as a guide to my intentions in the pages which follow.
English names ͤϡ̣ΤΤǤ롥English names θϡ̤ϱѸҲˤ̾դ٤ȡη̤ȤƤ̾äθȤȤ館ƤƤ褤
Coates, Richard. "Names." Chapter 6 of A History of the English Language. Ed. Richard Hogg and David Denison. Cambridge: CUP, 2006. 312--51.
5˥֥ͤƥ褷Ȥ轻ΥȿͤθŪƶ϶ϾäȤΤꥹˤѸˤŪǤ롥ȷϸαѸؤιȤƤϡ̾иȤϤۤȤɤʤȤΤŵŪʱѸ˽ǤεҤǤ롥Τ褦̾㳰ǤȤ褯뤬⤦1θͭ̾Ǥ̾ˤĤƤϤɤʤΤ⤽⤳䤤ϻפ⤫٤ȤʤäClark ηˤĤƶ̣1Ƥ롥
The name Cædmon borne by the father of English religious verse represents a Welsh reflex of British *Catumandos ( . . . British Catu- is cognate with OE Heaðo- 'battle'); and its form suggests a structural compatibility between Celtic and Germanic types of name . . . . Despite his English cultural identity, Cædmon might, as an ox-herd, be supposed descended from an enslaved people. However, British names also appear among English royalty, including, for instance, the Cerdic (Welsh Ceredig < British *Coroticos), Ceawlin, Ceadda and Ceadwalla (Welsh Cadwallen) found in the Early West Saxon genealogies . . . . The element Cæd-/Cead- reappears in the names of two seventh-century brothers, both bishops, Cedd and Ceadda . . . . The name Cumbra . . . . current among West-Saxon nobility represents Welsh Cymro < British *Combrogos 'Welshman'. Taken with the story of Vortigern's invitation . . . . and with the archaeological evidence mentioned, such names imply that the first settlers arrived pacifically, perhaps married into Romano-British nobility, and sometimes names their sons in compliment to their hosts . . . . Assuming any such names necessarily indicate British blood would go well beyond the evidence; but their adoption by English royalty must mean respect for Celtic traditions.
ȷϤ̾ӤӤϤβ²ȤȤϡ轻ȿͤФؤΡ֥ꥹڥȡפäȤȤްդ --- ʤʤɷŪʻŦǤ롥
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1. Ed. Richard M. Hogg. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 452--89.
#5297. űѸ̾ؤѸηϡ ([2023-10-28-1]) ѸǤϤ롥Ѹˤʤȡ̾ΤѤꡤȼäƿ̾ؤѸȤѤ롥Clark (551--52) ꡤϢսѤ롥
Neither the structure nor the content of the Present-Day English personal-name system owes much to pre-Conquest styles. The typical Old English personal designation consisted of a single distinctive name (or 'idionym'), such as Dudda, Godgifu or Wulfstan; and only occasionally was this supplemented by a qualifying by-name (usually postposed), such as sēo dæge 'the dairymaid' or sē hwīta 'the white(-haired man)' . . . . A Present-Day English 'full name', on the other hand, necessarily involves two components; the second denoting a patrilinear family group and the first (which may consist of one unit or or several), an individual within that group. In Present-Day English usage, moreover, the familial, hereditary component is the crucial one for close identification, whereas in Old English usage, as in early Germanic ones generally, the idionym was central, any addition being optional. Beside this total change of structure, it is trivial that, out of the hundreds of Old English idionyms, only a handful, and those mainly ones which, like Edith, Edmund and Edward, were associated with widely venerated saints, are today represented among Present-Day English first-names.
The change of system demands a change of terminology. The special term 'idionym', no longer appropriate, will be replaced by 'baptismal name' ('Christian name' is needed for a more specific sense, neither 'forename' nor 'first name' is appropriate until family naming is well established, and 'font name' is unidiomatic). For an optional identifying component, the term 'by-name' will be retained. Only when continuity between generations is demonstrable will the term 'family name' be used ('surname' is rejected as insufficiently precise).
űѸȰۤʤꡤѸǤ2ĤμȤ߹碌̾ŪˤʤäƤ롥ĤޤꡤŪʡ̾פȤŪȤʤäƤ櫓ǡűѸ줫 idionym ȤǰѸѤƤȤˤʤ롥षꥹȶҲˤ̾Ȥ baptismal name ȤǰѸ줬դ路ʤäƤ롥 baptismal name ˲äǡꤹ뤿 by-name ä褦ˤʤäȹͤ롥 by-name ϼºݾ²ȷϤɽ魯̤Ȥ¿Ѹˡ³̾ƥबޤäΤǤ롥
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2. Ed. Olga Fischer. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 542--606.
̾ץȡ (name_project) ȤδϢǡѸˤγƻоݤˤ̾ (name-study, or onomastics) ؤǤ롥ܲ̾ (personal_name) ˴ؿƤ뤬ˤäƿ̾ΤѤΤǡ˱ѸۤʤäƤ롥 Clark (456) ȤơűѸο̾ؤˤƻȤѸηϤǧƤ
Early Germanic custom required that each individual should have single, distinctive name . . . . The system was therefore geared to constant provision of fresh forms. For students of it, the first problem is one of terminology: in this context, 'forename' and 'first-name' become meaningless, 'baptismal name' and the artificial 'font-name' are both inapplicable to pagan tradition, and 'Christian name', as well as also being inapplicable, will later be needed for a different sense. The term 'personal name' favoured for this purpose by some scholars is over-general, because 'by-names' and family-names are no less 'personal'. For convenience, the terminology adopted here will be knowingly inconsistent: simply to distinguish anthroponym from toponym, 'personal name' will be used, but where greater precision is needed the technical term 'idionym' will be brought in. A supplementary name of whatsoever kind --- genealogical, honorific, occupational, locative or characteristics --- collocated with an idionym will be called a 'by-name' . . . . The term 'nickname' will denote any characterising terms whether used as by-name or as idionym . . . .
ͤ̾ŵŪˡָ̾פȤ٤ idionym Τߤʤ롥αѸܸ̾̾Τ褦ˡ̾2फʤΤǤϤʤäơfirst-name last-name Τ褦Ѹޤʤޤꥹȶ̾˰Τ baptismal name ʤɤθƾΤŬʤ
űѸο̾ŵŪ idionym 1फʤȤϤ⤦1Ĥ̾ǤǤդդ⤢롥ؤΤ by-name ȤѸ줬Ƴ롥by-name ˤϡοʪβȷϡȡサϡʡħΤʤ͡ʼब롥
ޤȤСűѸ̾ΥեޥåȤϡidionym (+ by-name)פȤȤˤʤ롥
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1. Ed. Richard M. Hogg. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 452--89.
̾ (name-study, or onomastics) Ȥϡˤ̾ڤФΤ̾ץȡ (name_project) Ω夲Ƥ顤ȤƤⵤˤʤơޤǤ롥
̾פ¤ؤοѸ˸Ԥ Cecily Clark űѸ̾ؤƳʸϤDzҤ٤Ƥ뤫Ӥ륤ȥƤ롥ʬܥƥȤȤƱȵۤɡޤƤ롥̾ءע̸ְע̤̾ϰ̡פȤ֤Ť3ʤʸϤΤޤްѤ (Clark 452--53)
7.1 General principles
7.1.1 The special status of names
Naming, although semantically a specialised function, in other respects forms part of the everyday language. Phonemic material has to be the same, and to follow dialectal and chronological paths that are related, albeit not invariably identical. The morpho-syntactic features of names must fit with general ones. Lexical material and modes of word-formation too must reflect those of the language at large. Indeed, place-names normally start as plain descriptions of the sites concerned: e.g. Kingston < cyninges tūn 'the king's estate', Pyrford < (æt pyrigan forda '(the settlement at) the ford by the pear-tree' . . . . Personal names, although less transparently motivated, likewise ultimately derive from elements of common language.
Before becoming truly a 'name', a descriptive formation must, however, be divorced from its etymological meaning in such a way that the sound-sequence, no matter how complex its structure or plain its surface-meaning, becomes a simple pointer; 'one might claim that unintelligible names fulfil their role more directly' . . . . Bath, as a place-name, coincides in form with the common noun, and awareness survives of the Roman baths that it commemorates; but, for all that, the name's everyday 'meaning' is independent of etymology. Such independence is clearer still with names which, like London, have, since records began, apparently been opaque to their users . . . . So, likewise with personal names: Philip means 'horse-lover', and as a Christian name it recalls an Apostle; but few present-day choosers and bearers of it seem much concerned either with etymology or --- at all events in present-day England --- with biblical associations.
Once semantically emptied, names draw partly aloof from the language at large. Although the phonological tendencies that affect them cannot be alien to those bearing on common vocabulary, the loss of denotation allows development to be freer, with compounds obscured and elements blurred and merged earlier and more thoroughly than in analogous 'meaningful' forms. Sound-developments seen in names may therefore antedate or exceed in scope those operating elsewhere in the language; and this makes any use of name-material for study of general or dialectal phonology an exercise requiring caution . . . . Morphosyntactically too, names stand apart. Being by nature 'definite', they take in normal English usage neither an indefinite article nor a definite one; an English name-form qualified by either sort of article is part-way towards reverting to common noun . . . . Only exceptionally can any name be pluralised. Place-names further differ from other classes of substantive by often showing an oblique-case form ousting the original nominative . . . .
̾ϤθηϤΰǤʤ顤ΩƤ⤤롥ϤηϤ˵۰¦̤⤢롥̾θ椷ʤ̣ؤˤĤΥ줺ˤŪ¸ߤȤ̥ŪǤ롥
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1. Ed. Richard M. Hogg. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 452--89.
εǼ夲#5289. ̾˰̣ϤΤ ([2023-10-20-1]) ˤĤơرμȤǵκݤˡʤ̾˰̣ΤݤǻݤʬΤȤͻ4ĤۤȻפäΤǡ˵ϿƤ
1ĤϡΥ١Ȥ Nyström ǤƤȤꡤ"A crucial point is what we mean by meaning" (40) Ȥ롥̣ȤϲˤĤƤǧΰ㤤ˤ̾˰̣Ϥ뤫פѤȤƼʥݥȤơͤƱդΤǤ⤢cf. #1782. ̣ΰ̣ ([2014-03-14-1])ˡ
2Ĥϡ嵭ʿŪ̾Ȥϲפǧΰ㤤˴ؤݥȤǤ롥ä̾Ȥߤʤ̾餷ȤϲȤ䤤ϡ̾ץȡ (name_project) ̤ƤȤǤ⤢롥㤨СŵŪʿ̾̾ˤˤϰ̣ʤ뤳ȤǤȤƤ⡤˥å͡ˤ餫˰̣Τ륱¿ȡ̾ȥ˥ạ̵̊ͭ͡εΤʤƱ˰ΤʤΤȤ䤬ͯ
3Ĥϡ̾ʤ (onomasticon) Ȱ̸줫ʤá̾ lexiconˤɤٽŤʤäƤ뤫ϡˤäưۤʤȤ𤬤롥㤨п̾ǹͤȡѸ John, Tom, Mary onomasticon ˤϿƤΤΡlexicon ˤϿƤʤܸο̾Ρ֤ס֤錄ס֤פʤɤ onomasticon ˤ lexicon ˤϿƤǤ롥Сˤơ̾ޡפΰ֤ŤۤʤäƤΤǤcf. #5195. ̾ (name lemma) ([2023-07-18-1])ˡθȤ뤫ߤ뤫ˤäơ̾˰̣ϤΤפؤФäƤΤϼΤȤ⤷ʤоȤˤĤơ˰դäС˰͵륢ե٥åʸηϤѤѸʡ饸ˤȡɽŪĴ¿ѤܸʡƥӷˤȤǤϡ̾Ọ̇̄δطªϰۤʤ
4Ĥˡ̾١ϰϤ˴ؤ롥²ǤΤ̤˥å͡ʤɤο̤̾פ֥ɥפΤ褦̾⤢롥̾ΰ̣̾ʹͤ벿Ȳ᤹ΤǤСʶüǤϤ뤬˲²ȤϰϤΰ㤤ϡΤޤ̾ΰ̣٤ͭ٤κˤʤ롥ĿͤˤȤäƤ̣ͭǤ⡤¾Τ٤ƤοͤˤȤäƤ̵̣ȤΤǤ롥ȡ̾˰̣ϤΤפŪ䤦Ȥʤ
ܵɤߤγˤ⡤ҵ³ƤС
Nyström, Staffan. "Names and Meaning." Chapter 3 of The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming. Ed. Carole Hough. Oxford: OUP, 2016. 39--51.
̾ؤ뤤ϸͭ̾ (onomastics) 1Ĥˡɸε롥Ϥ̾˰̣ΤɤˤĤƤϡĹ餯ͤ³Ƥ#5197. ͭ̾˰̣ϤΤʤΤ ([2023-07-20-1]) Ȥ줿Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)פΥץߥꥹʡۿֱͥѸˤ (helwa)סͭˤǤ֡ڱѸˤ #15̾˰̣뤫ʤȤƵƤ롥
Nyström (40--41) ϡͭ̾ˤϹ̣ǤΡְ̣פȤơ"the maxium meaningfulness thesis" ˻ƱƤ (40) ʲ Nyström εꡤǤפ
Do names have meaning or not, that is do they have both meaning and reference or do they only have reference? This question is closely connected to the dichotomy proper name---common noun (or to use another pair of terms name--appellative) and also to the idea of names being more or less 'namelike', showing a lower or higher degree of propriality or 'nameness'. Can a certain name be a more 'namelike' name than another? I believe it can. To support such an assertion one might argue that a name is not a physical, material object. It is an abstract conception. A name is the result of a complex mental process: sometimes (when we hear or see a name) the result of an individual analysis of a string of sounds or letters, sometimes (when we produce a name) the result of a verbalization of a thought. We shall not ask ourselves what a name is but what a name does. To use a name means to start a process in the brain, a process which in turn activates our memories, fantasy, linguistic abilities, emotions, and many other things. With an approach like that, it would be counterproductive to state that names do not have meaning, that names are meaningless.
̾ȤϲפȤ䤤̾ϲΤפȤ̾䤦ȤפʤΤǤϤʤȤˤܤڤꡤ줫夲ƤФȡ
Nyström, Staffan. "Names and Meaning." Chapter 3 of The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming. Ed. Carole Hough. Oxford: OUP, 2016. 39--51.
ε#5281. ʣ ([2023-10-12-1]) ˤʣ (plural_of_approximation) ˤĤơǽ˻ŦΤ Jespersen (83--85) Ǥ롥θŵɤ߱ΤǡΤޤްѤ
Plural of Approximation
4.51 The sixties (cf. 4.12) has two meanings, first the years from 60 to 69 inclusive in any century; thus Seeley E 249 the seventies and the eighties of the eighteenth century | Stedman Oxford 152 in the "Seventies" [i.e. 1870, etc.] | in the early forties = early in the forties. Second it may mean the age of any individual person, when he is sixty, 61, etc., as in Wells U 316 responsible action is begun in the early twenties . . . Men marry before the middle thirties | Children's Birthday Book 182 While I am in the ones, I can frolic all the day; but when I'm in the tens, I must get up with the lark . . . When I'm in the twenties, I'll be like sister Joe . . . When I'm in the thirties, I'll be just like Mama.
4.52. The most important instance of this plural is found in the pronouns of the first and second persons: we = I + one or more not-I's. The pl you (ye) may mean thou + thou + thou (various individuals addressed at the same time), or else thou + one or more other people not addressed at the moment; for the expressions you people, you boys, you all, to supply the want of a separate pl form of you see 2.87.
A 'normal' plural of I is only thinkable, when I is taken as a quotation-word (cf. 8.2), as in Kipl L 66 he told the tale, the I--I--I's flashing through the record as telegraph-poles fly past the traveller; cf. also the philosophical plural egos or me's, rarer I's, and the jocular verse: Here am I, my name is Forbes, Me the Master quite absorbs, Me and many other me's, In his great Thucydides.
4.53. It will be seen that the rule (given for instance in Latin grammars) that when two subjects are of different persons, the verb is in "the first person rather than the second, and in the second rather than the third" 'si tu et Tullia valetis, ego et Cicero valemus, Allen and Greenough, Lat. Gr. §317) is really superfluous, as a self-evidence consequence of the definition that "the first person plural is the first person singular plus some one else, etc." In English grammar the rule is even more superfluous, because no persons are distinguished in the plural of English verbs.
When a body of men, in response to "Who will join me?", answer "We all will", their collective answers may be said to be an ordinary plural (class 1) of I (= many I's), though each individual "we will" means really nothing more than "I will, and B and C . . . will, too" in conformity with the above definition. Similarly in a collective document: "We, the undersigned citizens of the city of . . ."
4.54. The plural we is essentially vague and in no wise indicates whom the speaker wants to include besides himself. Not even the distinction made in a great many African and other languages between one we meaning 'I and my own people, but not you', and another we meaning 'I + you (sg or pl)' is made in our class of languages. But very often the resulting ambiguity is remedied by an appositive addition; the same speaker may according to circumstances say we brothers, we doctors, we Yorkshiremen, we Europeans, we gentlemen, etc. Cf. also GE M 2.201 we people who have not been galloping. --- Cf. for 4.51 ff. PhilGr p. 191 ff.
4.55. Other examples of the pl of approximation are the Vincent Crummleses, etc. 4.42. In other languages we have still other examples, as when Latin patres many mean pater + mater, Italian zii = zio + zia, Span. hermanos = hermano(s) + hermana(s), etc.
ʣȤäƤ⡤ΰ̣ʣǤ롥ϡ츫ƷȤߤơܼŪˤϰ̣ȸʤΤȻפ
Jespersen, Otto. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part 2. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: C. Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1922.
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow