Navigate Messages: by Date - in Thread
Main Index - Date Index - Thread Index
 

Re: [ranchos] Yusuf: Names 's' and 'z'/HOHOHO

 
Jose,
 
Thanks for your generous response.  I will have to return home before I can deal with your suggestion about making a podcast.  I'm visiting my son in Texas and will return after Jan. 4 next year.  It sounds like a good idea to me.  It would give me something new to do.
 
My experience has been that "Je." is the abbreviation for "Jose".  "Jn." is usually the abbreviation for "Juan".  I have not seen the "Je." used interchangeably.  "Jph." is also another short form for either "Josef"  or "Joseph". 
 
Your question about "Puente" vs. "Puentes" is trickier to answer.  I'm sure you are aware that it comes from the Latin word for bridge, ponte.  It could be a mistaken application of the linguists strategy for  forming surnames from Gothic given names by adding "es".  Examples are: alvaro > alvares (son of alvaro); benito > benites; sancho > sanchez; rodrigo > rodrigues.  The root word for Puentes is not of Gothic origin but that doesn't prevent one from treating it as such.  The other phenomenon at work is the morphing of internal "o" to "ue" when words or names move from Latin to Spanish.  Portuguese does not have this characteristic.  I don't know if that other language has a "Pontes" name.  I know that there is a "Fontes" which would be written as "Fuentes" in Spanish  The word "pont" would not be acceptable to either the portuguese or the spanish sound system.  Thus, it is difficult to know whether there is a solid reason for there to be a singular and a plural form of the word used as a surname.
 
As for the 'attitude'- I think Ed's technical term is appropriate to use here in one way or other.  I don't know which misguided soul started the misinformation rumor that portuguese is better than spanish.  I think it's an old rivalry which seems to be typical of the iberian types.  I'll have to do a lilttle research when I get home to be able to give a better answer.  By the way, I have never met a person from the other side of the water who speaks Spanish who is also able to admit the tremendous debt the language owes to the Semitic (and Persian) linguists.  It always results in an angry response from our "betters".
 
Later, Jose (aka: Yusuf, Josse, Hoce, Josef, Joseph, Je., Jozze, etc.)
 
David in Albany CA


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Puentes
Sent: Dec 22, 2005 3:02 PM
To: ranchos@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ranchos] Yusuf: Names 's' and 'z'/HOHOHO

you said: I hope I sort of answered your question

David. . .fabulous answer and I'm so glad I asked.

thanks for taking the time to share with us things we need to hear more
about and absorb. In fact why not consider adding a little here and
there and tossing in a few references and producing a podcast on this
subject. It is something that many many people need to hear and I'd be
very happy to archive your message in both Audio and written form on the
NFU podcast. What do you think?

And while we're at it what do you have to say about the addition or
subtraction of the "s" on names for example my name: Puentes. In the
older records I only see "Puente" but in the newer records it starts
showing up and persisting as "Puentes." Some folks now a days get this
big "tude" about "We are NOT Puente, we are PUENTES!" As for me I know
I'm a Puente but somewhere down the line the name got modified. . .and i
used to think it changed in the US but no,  I see the change happening
in Mexico.

gracias David. . .and please make 2006 the year that you abolish that
phrase: "It's been a long time since I tried to make use of my
specialty- Spanish."

Yusuf (this is cool!)
Rougemont, NC

ps: I"ve seen what I thought was an abbreviation: Je and thought it
meant Juan, but are you saying that its a form of Yusuf? or Can it be both?


David P. Delgado wrote:

>Jose,
>
>It's been a long time since I tried to make use of my specialty- Spanish.  I'd like to try to present my understanding of the use of language by Spanish speakers.  As I recall, the language was first formed by the semitic linguists in the eighth century.  Before 711 A.D. there was a tremendous diversity in terms of languages spoken in the Iberian peninsula.  If you were to read the poems which are considered the earliest forms of Spanish you would barely recognize the language.  After 1492 the newly-formed "Spanish" people retained a very negative, resentful and vengeful attitude toward anything or anyone of semitic origins.  The government (monarchy) began a process of "ethnic cleansing" which extended into "purifying" the language.  Up until the early years of the 16th century no one even attempted to make rules for spelling.  The decision to make rules came from a small number of self-appointed experts not from the people who used the language.
>
>The early visitors to the western hemisphere spoke a Spanish which was almost 100% phonetic.  The language was capable of duplicating virtually every sound produced in other languages.  One of the most obvious signs is the so-called "x" in 16th century Spanish.  The sound originally came from a semitic language- (example: xoarex, xuares became "juarez" due to the linguists' felt need to purify the language).  Add to this scenario the fact that the western half of the iberian peninsula already had a very complete, beautiful language, gallego-portugues, the northeasterners had catalan, the far north had basque and there were other smaller groups with other languages (like the gitanos).  In addition iberians possess the incredibly intense characteristic of rugged individualism which resists any mandate to change.
>
>So, you have a small group of intellectuals mandating rules, slow and limited means of communication, and tremendous distances to cover.  Besides all of the above, priests constituted the most effective group of educated change agents.  Some of them were trained in different countries.  That is why "th" equals "t" as in French.  The change from "s" to "z" at the end of names was purely arbitrary.  That change has nothing to do with portuguese vs. spanish.  At one time all of the users of Spanish wrote the same names in the same way.  For centuries it didn't matter whether one wrote "joan or juan".  The sound is almost identical.  The sound of "y" can also be written with a "ll".  The main idea I'm trying to get across is that the language was developed by linguists.  Linguists tend to work from observations (empiricists).  The "Rulesmakers" at first were merely grammarians interested in functioning as authorities.  They knew the "right" way and everyone should shut up, listen and do
>
>Mexico, as we have all seen in our family history research.  Brough together all of these elements.  We see records which reflect all of the various phases of the development of early Spanish to modern Spanish.  The best way to approach the situation, in my opinion, is to observe and record.  I have noticed a pattern of spelling which can tell me at a glance the level of education, the place of origin, and the century of origin of a record at a glance.  All of you have seen the same thing.  Oh yes, one more element: when I found my ggf record in Ags. Ags....his baptismal record shows his name as Eustacio.  Yet his marriage record shows Austacio as do the baptism records of his children.  I call it the "countryfication" factor.  It's easier to make a new blend-au- than it is to articulate each of the vowels-e..u..- in a name.  This is what makes genealogy such an interesting challenge for those of us with ancestors with Spanish names.  It's complex, complicated. frustrating and incred
>
>So Jose, (Hoce, Josse, Joze, Josef, Joseph, Je., J., etc. all of which derive from "Yusuf") you really pushed my Talk button.  I hope I sort of answered your question. 
>
>David in Albany CA
>-----Original Message-----
> 
>
>>From: Joseph Puentes <makas@...>
>>Sent: Dec 21, 2005 3:58 PM
>>To: ranchos@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: [ranchos] Names 's' and 'z'/HOHOHO
>>
>>
>>This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask but kind of
>>forget every time I get to the key board. I guess its time (been time)
>>for me to start writing myself notes so i'll remember later [here's a
>>confession---I've been writing myself notes but half the time I forget
>>to look at the notes].
>>
>>anyway what is the take on  Gonzalez and Gonsalez and Gonzales and
>>Gonsales?
>>
>>Since I've started studying genealogy I've always been told not to get
>>hung up on spelling, but that seemed to be coming from the Anglo point
>>of view. I tend to believe that we as well shouldn't get hung up on
>>spelling from the Mexican point of view. Do you all agree?
>>
>>Reason I'm asking is that I seem to have read something when I first
>>started genealogy that either the the ending with the Z or the ending
>>with the S meant something like Jewish roots for folks of Hispanic
>>hertiage: Peres v. Perez
>>
>>I don't know and don't really know how they can prove something like
>>that with a bunch of folks that "SEEM" to be spelling the same persons
>>name in all different possible ways. . .what does that mean that to one
>>scribe he was Jewish and to the next one he wasn't. Or is it as it seems
>>to be that certain ones weren't very literate and spelled the names
>>phonetically?
>>
>>And since the Jewish subject came up does anyone know of good resources
>>for Askenazi (sp) Jews in Mexico. I seem to be of the tribe of Levi (a
>>priest) if my DNA indications are to be believed?
>>
>>joseph
>>
>>ps:  I hope you all have a Feliz Navidad. I wish we lived close by
>>because we could have a great party couldn't we.
>>   
>>



YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 




David P. Delgado