| |
Joseph, regarding the Je. and Ma. they are abbreviations for Jose and
Maria. I have seen Juan abbreviated as "Jn.", Encarnacion as Encn. with
the n written in smaller and above the line, etc.
Emilie Garcia
Port Orchard, WA ---
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 1:02
PM
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.
>>
>>
|
|
| |
by Date 
-