ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 1290 http://www.s-gabriel.org/1290 ************************************ 1 Nov 1998 From: (Josh Mittleman) Greetings from the Academy of Saint Gabriel! You asked for information about 5th century Irish names, particularly whether , meaning "Aonghus the Great Boar", is an authentic masculine name for that period. Here is what we have found. The earliest surviving written form of Irish dates from around the 4th century and is inscribed in stone in the alphabet called "Ogham". When this writing tradition developed, the Irish language was very different from the medieval form -- about as different as Latin is from French. This stage of the language is variously called "Primitive Irish", "Ogam Irish", or "Oghamic Irish". This writing system continued in active use into the 7th century, and while it was in active use, its users tended to write a conservative form of the language corresponding to what had been spoken when the system was originally developed. The spoken language, however, was undergoing considerable change. When a new writing system using Roman letters was developed in the 6th century, its users broke with tradition and wrote a language much closer to what was actually being spoken. This stage of the language, as recorded from the late 7th century to the mid-10th century, is called Old Irish [4]. The problem with reconstructing names used before the Old Irish period is that the only written examples are the Oghamic forms in the Primitive Irish language; and yet we also know that this written Primitive Irish must have been quite different from the spoken language. It takes a good deal of specialized knowledge to put the pieces together and come up with a likely reconstruction of both the written name and its pronunciation. The name is constructed from Modern Irish words in their modern spellings. The intended meaning isn't very far off for 5th century Ireland, but none of the words is correct. is the standard Modern Irish spelling of this name. is an English spelling [1]. Medieval Irish spellings of the same name (10th to 12th century) include and , pronounced something like \INE-gh@s\, with \INE\ rhyming with , \gh\ representing the voiced version of the sound in Scottish or German , and \@\ being the first vowel sound in [2]. These are the earliest examples we have of this name in Ireland. The 5th century ancestor of the name might have been or , or possibly or , perhaps pronounced \OI-n@-GOOS-ohs\ or \AY-n@-goo-s@s\ [3]. \OO\ is long, as in \hoot\. The word is one form of the Modern Irish word meaning "the". In particular, it is the feminine singular genitive form, inappropriate before the masculine noun (which means "piglet, young pig" or "lapdog", not "boar"). The initial added to would be correct in Modern Irish after if were a feminine noun -- it is required in Modern Irish in certain grammatical contexts -- but it is not correct here. The is not capitalized in Modern Irish because it isn't part of a root word, but rather indicates a change in pronunciation caused by the grammatical circumstances. In other words, it _is_ pronounced, and that's the only reason it's there [6]. Existing Oghamic Irish names do not include descriptive nicknames like "of the great boar". People are usually identified by a first name and a relationship: "son of so-and-so" or "member of so-and-so's tribe". There are occasional occupational terms and titles, but they are rare exceptions [4]. Therefore, we cannot advise you on how to construct a 5th century Irish epithet meaning "of the great boar" and we recommend that your friend choose a surname more typical of his period. We can suggest an alternative: Your leader's father's name could mean "great boar". We've found two possibilities: , which could be understood to mean "great pig", and , which could have more clearly meant "great boar" [7]. The phrase "son of Torccagnas" would have been written . The word or means "son", and is the possessive form of , just as is the possessive of in English. Alternatively, your friend could be a member of a tribe named after some ancestor , and he would be called , literally "Oinogusos son of the tribe of Torccagnas", perhaps pronounced \OI-n@-GOOS-ohs MAHK-kahs MOO-goi tork-KAHGH-nee\ or \AY-n@-goo-s@s MAH-k@s MUH-koy TOHR-ka-nyee\. \GH\ represents the voiced version of the sounds in Scottish or German . I hope this letter has been useful. Please write us again if any part of it has been unclear or if you have other questions. I was assisted in researching and writing this letter by Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn, Talan Gwynek, Aryanhwy merch Catmael, Margaret Makafee, and Aelfwyn aet Gyrwum. For the Academy, Arval Benicoeur 1 Nov 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - References [1] O/ Corra/in, Donnchadh and Fidelma Maguire, _Irish Names_ (Dublin: The Lilliput Press, 1990), s.n. O/engus, Banba/n, Torcca/n. [2] Jones, Heather Rose (aka Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn), "100 Most Popular Men's Names in Early Medieval Ireland" (WWW: J. Mittleman, 1998). http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/tangwystyl/irish100 [3] The second element of developed from an element that appears in other names in Ogham inscriptions, e.g. [4]; but we do not have similar examples of the first element. The most archaic-looking example of the name that we've found is [5]. There is a theory this first element is identical to the word for the number "one" [5]. If we accept this theory and follow McManus' discussion of Oghamic forms of the initial diphthong [4], then since the composition vowel of the prototheme cannot be palatalizing (given the resulting pronunciation), we can construct possible 5th century forms of the name starting with . If we take other discussion of historical phonology as our starting point, we can postulate the spellings [9]. [4] McManus, Damian, _A Guide to Ogam_ (Maynooth: An Sagart, 1991), pp.104, 107, 121, and chapter 6 for bynames. [5] Royal Irish Academy, _Dictionary of the Irish Language: based mainly on Old and Middle Irish materials_ (Dublin : Royal Irish Academy, 1983). [6] McGonagle, Noel, _Irish Grammar: A Basic Handbook_ (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1998), p.7; O/ Siadhail, Mi/chea/l, _Learning Irish_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), p.137, p.224. [7] The second element <-agnas> is well-attested in ca. 5th century inscriptions [4]. Old Irish sources contain examples of the names , based on a word meaning "pig", and , based on a word meaning "boar" [1]. The cognate of is found in Gaulish names as so earlier use in Irish seems perfectly likely [8]. We are postulating that the second would already be established in Irish in the 5th century. So could be a reasonable 5th century name. has a much clearer implication of "boar" as opposed to generic "pig". Again, this prototheme is unattested in ca. 5th century inscriptions, but it reconstructs with no uncertainty at all as . [8] Evans, D. Ellis, _Gaulish Personal Names: a Study of some Continental Celtic Formations_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), p.149. [9] Lewis, Henry, and Holger Pedersen, _A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar_ (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989).