Discussion:
Mr Richardson's use of the term "vernacular"
(too old to reply)
CED
2005-04-17 01:13:44 UTC
Permalink
To the Newsgroup:

Mr. Richardson has submitted the following definition of vernacular:
"1 a : using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather

than a literary, cultured, or foreign language."



The below is an excerpt from a post of Mr. Douglas Richardson in which
he makes a point, seemingly as an authority on the matter, of
criticizing another's use of certain names. He states that these names
"need to be translated into the vernacular" without stating what
language is the vernacular. At the same time, he is critical of the use
of Alianore, as being archaic, while he corrects "Riddlesford" with the
archaic "Ridelisford."

(1) Mr Richardson states that "Elena is the Latin form of Ellen."
Presumably he believes that Ellen is a vernacular form. In what
language is Ellen the vernacular? What is his source for the form
"Ellen"?

In fact (using Charlotte M. Yonge's _History of Christian Names_) the
Latin form of that name is "Helena," while the English form includes,
among others, Helena, Helen, Elaine, Ellen, and Eleanor, and the Scots
includes Helen and Ellen, and the Irish includes Helena, and Eileen.
On what authority does Mr. Richardson make his claim that "Elena is the
Latin form of Ellen" or that Ellen is vernacular?

(2) Mr. Richardson states that "Devorguilla is the Latin form of
Devorguil."
Devorguilla was in fact a Scots name, the Angliscized (lowland Scots)
form of the Celtic "Dearbhforgail." "Devorguil" is simply a variant
shortening of "Devorguilla." (Again Yonge; and, among others, Hanks &
Hodges _Dictionary of First Names_)
(3) Mr. Richardson states that "Eva is the Latin form of Eve."
Here he is correct in stating that Eva is the Latin form. Eve is the
English (and French form); but even in English, Eva was a variant of
Eve. (Again among others Yonge, and Hanks & Hodges).
So, even when Mr. Richardson states a need to translate names into the
vernacular, he does not tell us the language of the vernacular. Also,
he seems not to know the Latin forms or the 'vernacular' forms on which
he insists.
It should be noted that, even Mr. Richardson's definition of
"vernacular" excludes literary or written languages.
An individual, on this list, who is an authority on the matter of
medieval names ought to be more careful of his facts.
To be continued.

CED

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Local: Thurs,Sep 12 2002 12:04 pm
Subject: Re: Descendants of Uhtred of Galloway (was Re: Stuteville of
Cottingham)

Dear John ~ [* John P. Ravilious ]

A couple of quick comments about your post.
<snip>
Riddlesford is usually spelled Ridelisford in the literature.
<snip>
Lastly, you have several Latin name forms which need to be translated
into the vernacular. Elena is the Latin form of Ellen. Devorguilla
is the Latin form of Devorguil. Eva is the Latin form of Eve. Also,
Alianore is an archaic form of Eleanor.
I think that about covers it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
CED
2005-04-17 02:30:49 UTC
Permalink
To the Newsgroup:
Mr. Richardson recently (see spelling of the name Aline) submitted the
following definition of vernacular:
"1 a : using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather

than a literary, cultured, or foreign language."

Below is an excerpt of one of his posts in which he appears to think
that vernacular is the equivalent of modern.

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval From: ***@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) - Date: 9 Sep 2002 01:02:09 -0700 Subject: Re:
Standardization and modernization of given names
Dear P.J.
<snip>
It depends on the whim of the person and how familiar he or she is with

the vernacular (or modern) form of the name.
<snip>
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

CED
CED
2005-04-17 14:27:08 UTC
Permalink
To the Newsgroup:

Below is a posting by Mr. Douglas Richardson in which he says that "de
Burgh" is the vernacular form of Hubert de Burgh, sometime justiciar of
England during the reign of King Henry III, and earl of Kent.

Can Mr. Richardson tell us in which language was "de Burgh" used, in
the vernacular, during Hubert de Burgh's lifetime. Hubert de Burgh's
name appears on the record many times (both in official records and in
chronicles) during and shortly after his lifetime, beginning during the
reign of King John and continuing in Matthew of Paris. I have not
found an instance of "de Burgh."

Can Mr. Richardson tell us how such a spelling could have arisen in
Thirteenth Century England when the vernacular was English? (It is
hardly likely that such a spelling could have arisen in any variety of
French.) If "de Burgh" was a later creation in writing, how could it
have been "the correct vernacular form"?

To be continued.

CED

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval From:
***@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) Date: 14 Oct
2004 05:39:22 -0700 Subject: Re: FW: de Burgh
Be the way, I was a bit surprised to see ODNB give the surname
as "de Burgh." These days one usually sees it as de Burgo, due
perhaps to the influence of Sir Ian Moncrieffe, who wrote that
"de Burgh" was an absurd and unhistorical modern invention.
Dear Brice ~
The reason why ODNB gives the surname as "de Burgh" is because it is
the correct vernacular form of this name. The form "de Burgo" is the
ancient Latin form of this name. With due respect to Sir Ian, the
Latin form is inappropriate to use in a modern text written in
English
CED
2005-04-18 01:00:25 UTC
Permalink
To the Newsgroup:

Remembering that Mr. Richardson submitted the following definition of
vernacular:
"1 a : using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather

than a literary, cultured, or foreign language."

Below is an excerpt from a post by Mr. Richardson in which he leaves no
doubt as to the language which he considered to be "vernacular." He
wrote, respecting the names Ida and Ela that " the medieval vernacular
were actually Ide and Ele (these being the French forms)" yet he
employs Ida and Ela.

Three points to consider:

(1) He deems French to be the vernacular when he dealing with persons
who, for the most part, were subjects of English kings in England. This
is not a "language or dialect native to" England.

(2) Contrary to his own rule of using his "vernacular" forms, he uses
form which he knows not to be his "vernacular."

(3) By this time French was a literary language in France so, by his
own definition, it could not be "vernacular" in that land.

To be continued

CED

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval From: ***@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) Date: 16 Jan 2003 16:57:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Fitz
Roy:RichardSmith v. Richardson
Dear Richard ~
You've addressed the problems which we medievalists face in a very
succinct fashion.

<snip>
Given names such as Ida and Ela in the medieval vernacular
were actually Ide and Ele (these being the French forms). However,
again bowing the modern convention, I employ Ida and Ela in my
records.
<snip>
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
***@email.unc.edu ("Richard Smyth at UNC-CH") wrote in message
<news:001f01c2bd91$a156e7d0$***@peirce>...
CED
2005-04-21 16:53:10 UTC
Permalink
To the Newsgroup:

Thus far I have tried to avoid continental examples of Mr. Richardson's
misuse of the term "vernacular." However, since in the following post,
he criticizes "English historians and genealogists," it is appropriate
to include it among the English posts, rather than the continental
posts (to be considered at a later date).

Mr. Richardson says: "that English historians and genealogists usually
refer to Queen Bérengère as Berengaria. This is rather misleading, as
I believe Berengaria is the Latin form of the Queen's name. Bérengère
is the way her name is presented in French sources such as the
Boulancourt Abbey obituaire. As best I can tell, this is the
contemporary vernacular form of the Queen's name."

First, it is necessary to point out that Mr. Richardson has said in
numerous posts that it is not proper to use Latin forms of names. If
we are to follow his dictates, we must use "vernacular" forms of those
names, in this case Berengaria.
Remembering that Mr. Richardson submitted the following definition of
vernacular:
"1 a : using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather
than a literary, cultured, or foreign language," we must find a
language or dialect native to Berengaria of Navarre's place of birth
(or as Mr. Richardson chooses, the place of her final residence) which
is not literary, not cultured, and not foreign.
So far as we know, Berengaria was born in Navarre. I have no evidence
as to whether the local Navarrese dialect was literary at that time, so
we can assume, as working hypothesis, that Navarrese would be the
vernacular in her place of birth. We do not know, so far as I can
determine, how Berengaria was pronounced in Navarrese. Until proven
otherwise, under Mr. Richardson's definition, we are left with the name
we have always known: Berengaria.
Mr. Richardson says that as best "I can tell, this [Bérengère] is the
contemporary vernacular form of the Queen's name."
In another post he contends that since she spent her last twenty-four
years in France, we must assume that Bérengère was the name she used.
Two points to be considered:
(1) She spent those last years, for the most part, as a resident in a
monastery; so we do not know the language she used in her last years.
(2) Bérengère, with diacritical marks, is modern French, written
after 1500. It is almost imposible for that form to be used as the
"contemporary vernacular form of the Queen's name." If the French
sources use Bérengère, those sources are using modern French forms,
not the "contemporary vernacular" form.

We should as two questions:

(1) Why not use Latin forms of names?

(2) Where did Mr. Richardson learn the history of the French language?

Will Mr. Richardson answer them?

To be continued.

CED

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval From: ***@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) - Find messages by this author Date: 1 May 2003 00:44:10
-0700 Local: Thurs,May 1 2003 12:44 am Subject: Re: Death date of Queen
Bérengère of England
Dear John ~
You've asked a good question. I'll try to answer it as best I can.
<snip>

Given that we know the Queen Bérengère died in December, 1230, I
think
it is highly probable the her obituaire dated 23 December listed in
the records of Boulancourt Abbey is likewise her death day and month.
By the way, I might point out that English historians and genealogists
usually refer to Queen Bérengère as Berengaria. This is rather
misleading, as I believe Berengaria is the Latin form of the Queen's
name. Bérengère is the way her name is presented in French sources
such as the Boulancourt Abbey obituaire. As best I can tell, this is
the contemporary vernacular form of the Queen's name. See, for
example, Cartulaire Normand, by L. Delisle (1882), pg. 19; and
Cartulaire de Château-du-Loir, by E. Vallée (1905), pp. 80-81.
<snip>
Denis Beauregard
2005-04-21 17:16:25 UTC
Permalink
On 21 Apr 2005 09:53:10 -0700, "CED" <***@cox.net> wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval:

Can you read the manual of your newsreader and learn to reply and
quote correctly ? It is not possible to answer to your messages
because they are so badly formatted and out of the relevant thread.


Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo www.sgcf.com
CED
2005-04-21 20:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Denis Beauregard:

I do not understand and apologize for not doing so.

I do not have a manual for my newsreader.

If you can explain how I may reply to older messages which do not have
a direct reply button, I would greatly appreciate your assisting me.

CED
Denis Beauregard
2005-04-21 21:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by CED
I do not understand and apologize for not doing so.
I do not have a manual for my newsreader.
If you can explain how I may reply to older messages which do not have
a direct reply button, I would greatly appreciate your assisting me.
I don't have the same newsreader and I don't know which one you use.

Usually, the following options are available:

- reply or reply in private or reply to poster, etc.
- reply to all or reply to newsgroup/group, etc. This is the one
you need
- post a new message or begin a new thread, etc.


Also, you must select the message to which you reply and not your own
message.


Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo www.sgcf.com
CED
2005-04-21 23:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Denise Beauregard:

Thank you, I will try do do better. If it doesn't work out, please
advise me further.

I hope you understand that my concern is Mr. Richardson's mis-use of
the term "vernacular." If you could advise me as to how I can use his
various misuses of that term in the past to demonstrate his limited
knowledge of medieval languages, please do so.

CED
CED
2005-04-21 23:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Denise Beauregard:

Thank you, I will try do do better. If it doesn't work out, please
advise me further.

I hope you understand that my concern is Mr. Richardson's mis-use of
the term "vernacular." If you could advise me as to how I can use his
various misuses of that term in the past to demonstrate his limited
knowledge of medieval languages, please do so.

CED
W***@aol.com
2005-04-21 17:27:16 UTC
Permalink
This reminds me of the post I had made some time ago about the "proper" form
of a name.

At that time I was asking a very generic question such as (this is just an
example and not a real person):

If Susan started her life as Susan of [born in] Newcastle and then her father
became Earl of Cornwell and she was then referred to as Susan of Cornwall in
some document. And later she marries the Count of Montagu and then becomes
styled as Susan of Montagu and also as Susan, Countess Montagu. Then her uncle
the Earl of Limburger dies and she inherits and becomes Duchess Limburger ....
how do we refer to her in programs that can only take ONE name field ?

I think the generally accepted answer would be, we follow the example of
previous historians where they agree, and we free-wheel where they don't.

Comments, and vicious personal attacks welcome :)

Will Johnson
Leo van de Pas
2005-04-21 20:33:04 UTC
Permalink
A modern time example could be multi-married Elizabeth Taylor. This is why I
record women with the name they were born with, at least in the genealogical
part. If there is a briography, then the naming can vary, depending on what
is said about a particular time in life. Some people record Mrs. XYZ if her
original name is not known, but I use NN in that case.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <***@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: Mr Richardson's use of the term "vernacular"
Post by W***@aol.com
This reminds me of the post I had made some time ago about the "proper" form
of a name.
At that time I was asking a very generic question such as (this is just an
If Susan started her life as Susan of [born in] Newcastle and then her father
became Earl of Cornwell and she was then referred to as Susan of Cornwall in
some document. And later she marries the Count of Montagu and then becomes
styled as Susan of Montagu and also as Susan, Countess Montagu. Then her uncle
the Earl of Limburger dies and she inherits and becomes Duchess Limburger ....
how do we refer to her in programs that can only take ONE name field ?
I think the generally accepted answer would be, we follow the example of
previous historians where they agree, and we free-wheel where they don't.
Comments, and vicious personal attacks welcome :)
Will Johnson
Peter Stewart
2005-04-22 10:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
This reminds me of the post I had made some time ago about the "proper" form
of a name.
At that time I was asking a very generic question such as (this is just an
If Susan started her life as Susan of [born in] Newcastle and then her father
became Earl of Cornwell and she was then referred to as Susan of Cornwall in
some document. And later she marries the Count of Montagu and then becomes
styled as Susan of Montagu and also as Susan, Countess Montagu. Then her uncle
the Earl of Limburger dies and she inherits and becomes Duchess Limburger ....
how do we refer to her in programs that can only take ONE name field ?
I think the generally accepted answer would be, we follow the example of
previous historians where they agree, and we free-wheel where they don't.
The conventional practice would be to refer to this lady by the highest rank
she attained in her own right - in this case, as Susan, Countess of
Limburger (not "Duchess" if she inherited this title from an uncle who was
an earl rather than a duke).

To take an extreme instance of this, hereafter Joseph Ratzinger will usually
be called Pope Benedict XVI, even if he should die tomorrow after 78 years
(less a few days) under his former name.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2005-04-22 10:56:55 UTC
Permalink
"Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:0J4ae.19874$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
To take an extreme instance of this, hereafter Joseph Ratzinger will
usually be called Pope Benedict XVI, even if he should die tomorrow after
78 years (less a few days) under his former name.
Make that "plus a couple of days..."

I think he celebrated his 78th birthday on the day before the conclave
started.

Peter Stewart
Renia
2005-04-22 11:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by CED
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
To take an extreme instance of this, hereafter Joseph Ratzinger will
usually be called Pope Benedict XVI, even if he should die tomorrow after
78 years (less a few days) under his former name.
Make that "plus a couple of days..."
I think he celebrated his 78th birthday on the day before the conclave
started.
16th April

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...