>>Das westfälische Geschlecht ZUM EGEN (auch: ZUMEGEN geschrieben),
>>das bereits 1635 in Hattingen im Ennepe-Ruhrkreis, ab 1637 in
>>Darup im Kreis Coesfeld, ab 1677 in Nottuln im Kreis Münster
>>und ab 1693 in Buldern im Kreis Coesfeld erscheint, ist nicht
>>adelig.
A useful example (of all those Google finds randomly). The
author deals with the family zum Egen because many think
it is a noble clan. The author explains it can't be, since
this surname isn't mentioned in certain lists. And this could
imply that no competent authorities has ever attested this
family's nobility status.
It is significant that, although <Geschlecht> also simply
means "family, clan, Stamm, Sippe, Sippschaft, gens/genus,
tribe, Volksstamm" etc., the author does not use for it
the common words <Familie>, <Sippe>, <Stamm>, <Familienband>,
<Familienverband>, <Haus>, <Gemeinschaft> etc. (the Yiddishism
Mischpoke, a synonym for Familie, Sippe, Geschlecht, would
fit only if the author would have derided the family, if
he'd written a mockery).
He takes <Geschlecht> exactly because zum Egen people are,
by and large, seen as a noble group, and his purpose
is to show the perception is erroneous.
>>Würde das Geschlecht zum historischen Adel gehören,
In its *usage* <Geschlecht> has (in many if not most
cases) the connotation "ein besonderer Stamm, eine
vornehme Familiengruppe" (privileges, social status
etc.).
If it weren't so, he'd have written <Familie>,
<Sippe>, and <Stamm>. But he still uses <Geschlecht>
although he seems to have a poin: namely that this
family isn't aristocratic.
>>dann würde es in dem mir vorliegenden Adelslexikon",
>>herausgegeben vom Deutschen Adelsarchiv, Band III
>>(Buchstaben Dor-F), Limburg a.d. Lahn 1975, genannt sein.
>>Dies ist jedoch nicht der Fall.
>>Zwar gibt es in Tirol eine Adelsfamilie VON EGEN, die 1644
>>eine kaiserliche Bestätigung ihres Adelsstandes erhielt,
>>doch ist diese Familie nicht identisch mit der westfälischen
>>Familie ZUM EGEN.
>>
>>http://forum.ahnenforschung.net/showthread.php?t=9617
>
>You didn't get it, did you? The expression 'von Geschlecht' does
>not occur in your quotes.
It doesn't matter. <Geschlecht> *per se* has the connotation
"von vornehmer Abstammung, von edlem Geblüt, mit dem Silberlöffel
im Mund geboren, hochwohlgeboren" etc. I already underlined
a few times: its meaning & __usage__ depend on the context
(on what's to be said).
Search yourself via Google "von Geschlecht"+"adelig"; or
+"adlig"; +"Adel"; +"vornehm"; +"Abstammung"; +"Herkunft"
and other words that would separate <Geschlecht "sex; gender">
from <Geschlecht "origin, genealogy">. You'll get many useful
examples of usage in contexts where <von> can be "tagged"
to <Geschlecht>.
If I search them myself, I'll wast my time, coz you'll
again protest against lists of "useless" words.
I'm only inserting this simple sentence (out of a
wikipedia article):
"Hier gründete der mythische König Francio
das nach ihm benannte Geschlecht der Franken".
Although we know that <Geschlecht> can mean "descendants,
family, clan, dinasty" or even "tribe, nation (of the Franks),"
there's no need to add <edles> or <adeliges> or <Adels-> etc.
Even without a context, the word <König> suffices. Weren't
the idea (assertion) "the reason for them being called
Franken is that the name of one of their kings was Francio",
then there would be no need to use <Geschlecht>.
<Familie>, <Stamm>, <Volk>, <Volksstamm> etc. will do.
<Das Geschlecht der Franken> must have been "noble"
for in a certain period; or at least those families
(<Geschlechter>) that had relevant positions at the
king's court.
>you will post a listing twice as long of German expressions
>where 'Geschlecht' mean 'a noble lineage' (but not 'the nobility').
Whoever has a noble lineage belongs to the nobility.
(To get this certified, it is a simply bureaucratic
action for that person to show his/her evidence to an
authorised body & that's it. You can belong to the
nobility even lacking a noble lineage: see adoptions
and marriages.)
What's linguistically (semantically, stylistically) important:
the lexical selection <Geschlecht> in certain contexts is not
a mechanical substitution (<Familie, Stamm, Sippe>). It is
usually used whenever there is a nobility context or some
irony or satyre in use. This is so due to tradition.
And the usage has some history:
OHG <gislahti>:
"das, was in dieselbe Richtung schlägt;
Geschlecht, Stamm, Stammbaum, Abstammung,
Herkunft, Spross, Sprössling"
MHG <geslahte, geslehte>.
(NB: the extremity of its general semantics, as a "group",
is <Menschengeschlecht> "human race, humanity, man". The
meaning "generation" (people of a certain age/epoch)
is old-fashioned today.)
Conclusion:
(a) depending on context and the skills for creating
idiomatically and stylistically good German sentences,
<das Geschlecht> can stand alone, un"prefixed" by nouns
such as <Adels-, Königs-, Kaisers-, Fürsten-> etc.;
and even without adjectives (ie, <adlig, edel, vornehm,
hochwohlgeboren>);
(b) the relevant meaning of it is very old (OHG);
today, this term with these connotations isn't as
frequently used as it was a few centuries ago (for
obvious historic-social-political reasons).
(c) the nexus <geslahte> > <Geschlecht> & szlachta in
Polska seems plausible and logical (semantics,
phonetics, historical events & developments).
(d) <Geschlecht> in this part of the discussion is
a certain *group, collectivity* within the entire
collectivity called <der Adel> or <Adelsstand>.
In contemporary German, the cases in which for
style/rhetoric reasons <Geschlecht> might be used
as a synonym of <Adel> are, of course, quite rare.
But the fact that in German the collectivity of
noblepeople are called <Adel> (<niederer Adel> and
<Hochadel>), whereas <Adel> in Poland is called
<szlachta>, is no problem: in far too numerous
cases, the loanword usage in a borrower language
is not used exactly as in the initial language.
>Bei meinem Leisten, meinst du wohl.
Erraten, gscheiter Bua (kriagst a Keks).
(Who sees the ant climb up the church
spire but doesn't the church.)
>Aber das *ist* mein Leisten.
Dies auch noch herauszuposaunen angesichts des
Dargelegten! Jo mei, sehr mutig. Um beim Leistenbild
zu bleiben: So ein z'amm'geschustertes Schuwerk
missfiele auch einem Prokrustes.
(Auch "szlachta" abgehakt.)