Latin help please

[Tahiri]

I am looking at an early eighteenth century baptism register with
failrly clear writing but I am uncertain of the abbreviations, partly
because they keep writing fil. instead of filia/us so I don't know the
gender of the child in question. I have 'Edrii' or 'Edrus', the latter
with a squiggle over the 'u' (different entries) and my best guess is
Edwardus, thus Edward. Anyone got any other suggestions? What about
'Johes'? Is thst going to be Johannes and thus John? Am I right that it
would end with an 'a' for a female even as an abbreviation? Should I be
taking any notice of the ending of the father's forename? These feel
like silly questions but I only did a little latin at school and that
was a loong time ago!

[Richard Smith]

I have 'Edrii' or 'Edrus', the latter with a squiggle over the 'u'
(different entries) and my best guess is Edwardus, thus Edward.
Anyone got any other suggestions?

Assuming you've not misread the name, then I think that's almost
certainly the case. Edrus will be the nominative and Edrii the
genitive, so if you saw "Edrus fil Edrii", for example, it would mean
Edward son of Edward. The son's name is written first using the
nominative because he is the subject of the sentence, and the father's
name is in the genitive to show possession.

What about 'Johes'? Is thst going to be Johannes and thus John?

Depending on the time period, it's possible Jonathan is also a
possibility, but that would be unusual. John is by far the more likely
possibility.

Am I right that it would end with an 'a' for a female even as an
abbreviation?

To some extent. Most Latinised forms of English female names are first
declension and end -a in the nominative, while most male names are
second declension and end -us in the nominative. There are exceptions,
including Johannes which is third declension ending -es in the
nominative, but Johanna (or Joanna) has a regular first declension.

Because Latin nouns (including personal names) decline according to
their use in a sentence, the endings change. In a parish register, at
least in the short entries that are the norm in England, you're only
really likely to encounter the nominative and genitive cases. Your
Latin teacher probably told you the first declension genitive ending was
-ae, and so it was in Classical times; but by mediaeval times it had
become -e, meaning the genitive of the female name Johanna was Johanne,
though Johannae can occasionally be found. The second declension
genitive ending is -i, and the third declension (as used by Johannes) is
-is, meaning the genitive of the male name Johannes was Johannis. Thus,
if the clerk wanted to say "John son of Joanne", he might write "Johes
fil Johe", and "Joanne daughter of John" might be written "Joha fil
Johis". If you're lucky, the clerk will decide to abbreviate "filia" as
"fila" rather than just "fil", which is an additional clue.

Should I be taking any notice of the ending of the father's forename?

If you're certain it is the father's forename, and the record is
otherwise clear, then perhaps not. But bear in mind that registers
sometimes identify only the mother, for example in the case of
illegitimacy, without specifically saying she is the mother. Sometimes
the ending can be the only clue that this is is the mother not the father.

Also, word order is much more flexible in Latin than in English, so it's
possible to switch the order of the two names around, putting the parent
first. In practice this is rare, but if it happens, it is only the
endings which tell you. Thus, "Johis fil Joha" does not mean "John son
of Joanna", but rather "John's daughter Joanna".

Fortunately there aren't many pairs of male and female names which are
quite so similar.

Richard

[Tahiri]

Post by Richard Smith
Because Latin nouns (including personal names) decline according to
their use in a sentence, the endings change. In a parish register, at
least in the short entries that are the norm in England, you're only
really likely to encounter the nominative and genitive cases. Your Latin
teacher probably told you the first declension genitive ending was -ae,
and so it was in Classical times; but by mediaeval times it had become
-e, meaning the genitive of the female name Johanna was Johanne, though
Johannae can occasionally be found. The second declension genitive
ending is -i, and the third declension (as used by Johannes) is -is,
meaning the genitive of the male name Johannes was Johannis. Thus, if
the clerk wanted to say "John son of Joanne", he might write "Johes fil
Johe", and "Joanne daughter of John" might be written "Joha fil Johis".
If you're lucky, the clerk will decide to abbreviate "filia" as "fila"
rather than just "fil", which is an additional clue.

Should I be taking any notice of the ending of the father's forename?

If you're certain it is the father's forename, and the record is
otherwise clear, then perhaps not. But bear in mind that registers
sometimes identify only the mother, for example in the case of
illegitimacy, without specifically saying she is the mother. Sometimes
the ending can be the only clue that this is is the mother not the father.
Also, word order is much more flexible in Latin than in English, so it's
possible to switch the order of the two names around, putting the parent
first. In practice this is rare, but if it happens, it is only the
endings which tell you. Thus, "Johis fil Joha" does not mean "John son
of Joanna", but rather "John's daughter Joanna".
Fortunately there aren't many pairs of male and female names which are
quite so similar.
Richard

Thank you Richard. That is all very helpful.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Tahiri

Post by Richard Smith
Because Latin nouns (including personal names) decline according to

[]

Post by Tahiri

Post by Richard Smith
Richard

Thank you Richard. That is all very helpful.

Seconded. Post marked for keeping!

JPG
---


--
Are petitions unfair? See 255soft.uk (YOUR VOTE COUNTS)! [Pass it on.]

[Ian Goddard]

Post by Richard Smith
Depending on the time period, it's possible Jonathan is also a
possibility, but that would be unusual.  John is by far the more likely
possibility.

The affectation of writing English names as if they were Latin can have
unfortunate side effects.

I've seen a pair of twins recorded, one as Isaacus. It's a fairly safe
bet the parents called the second Jacob and not James. In fact the
second was Jacobanus at baptism but a few days later was the burial of
Jacobus.


Ian