Re: [tied] Re: speaking PIE

We do know of course that in the 1200s people in England had names like “Aaron of Lincoln”. Also the Anglo Saxon Chroniclee shows doesn’t give Hengest and Horsa surname !!! Could it have been Hengest Richardson? Or Horsa Warner? Or just Hengest and Horsa?

-----Original Message-----
From: cybalist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gordon Barlow
Sent: 10 July 2005 22:13
To: cybalist candw
Subject: [tied] Re: speaking PIE

I sensed some irritation in Brian's posting (below), and he will sense some
in this of mine.  If he had read my original posting patiently, he might
have noticed that my interest was in the personal names of the original
IE-speakers.  I don't care if they had one name (each) or ten.  The question
is: what names might they have borne?

The statement that "between late antiquity and ... the year 1000... the vast
majority of Europeans bore a single name [each]" is not only unproven and
unprovable, it is based on the false premise that it is knowable.  All but a
few of the very few names recorded during that period - and indeed during
the period between "late antiquity" and the Year Dot - are of persons
prominent in clan-politics.  To those millions living in hereditary clans in
their clan territories, clan-names were available as surnames, whether
permanent ones or not.  In fluid societies, individuals of low social rank
(including slaves, soldiers, migrants, drifters) might remove from their
clans and adopt new identifiers, permanent or temporary.  The proposal
(offered by default) that clan-identifiers never existed for those below the
upper classes in pre-civilisation times is - excuse me - presumptuous in the
extreme.

The implicit proposal that the practices of either 17th-Century North
America (Ned) or 9th-Century North Italy (Brian) indicate the naming
patterns of the earliest Indo-European-speakers is absurd.  "Serious
onomastics" should not tolerate such nonsense.  If my own proposal is indeed
"simply false", then a serious onomasticator - if that's the word - ought to
be able to chew his way to something more than the bare bone of an
unsupported denial.  I will be very glad, if Brian & Ned can put some meat
on the bones in future postings.

Gordon Barlow


>This is simply false.  Either you've not seen much in the
>way of serious onomastics, or you've failed to appreciate
>what you have seen.

>This is... not serious onomastics.

>No, it isn't [likely that personal names began at the very dawn of
speech]... Between late
>antiquity and, say, the year 1000 CE the vast majority of
>Europeans bore a single name.
>Brian

>I'm not qualified to address the question of given names, but with
>surnames the evidence is often sufficient to justify the certainty. For
>example, in 17th century New Netherland... All very clear
>and well-documented. The same process can be observed on many European
>locations when examining their records for the appropriate period.
>Ned