ACADEMY OF SAINT GABRIEL REPORT 2091 http://www.s-gabriel.org/2091 ************************************ From: "Brian M. Scott" 20 Jul 2000 Greetings from the Academy of S. Gabriel! You said that you were interested in a 13th or 14th century feminine name that would have been used in a Germanic-speaking country, especially Austria. You said that you especially liked the given names and but weren't sure what to use for a byname. You mentioned two possibilities: or some other variation of your modern surname , and , the Latin name of Vienna, but you weren't sure whether they were appropriate for Austria in the 13th or 14th century. In either case you wondered what you would have to add to make it sound like a surname, suggesting that might be appropriate. Finally, you said that your favorite name so far was . The limitations of our sources have forced us to arrive at some of our answers by indirect routes. Consequently, parts of this letter are rather dense and may be somewhat heavy going; you may want to begin by skipping to the summary of our conclusions at the end of the letter and then going back and reading the details. is a rather thoroughly Latinized form of the old Germanic feminine name . This name is recorded in a wide variety of forms in the 13th and 14th centuries, reflecting different regional dialects and degrees of Latinization. [1, 2] The Latinized forms, especially those ending in <-is>, are almost certainly just documentary and often do not accurately represent the spoken name. When we have records from the right dialect area, we can use variant Latinizations and the occasional name recorded in the vernacular (i.e., without Latinization) to approximate the spoken name fairly closely. Unfortunately, we have few sources for names written in the Bavarian dialects, which include those spoken in Austria. We must therefore rely on general information about the history of German dialects and on names recorded in related dialects spoken to the west and north. Our most extensive sources are Swiss, so we'll begin with them. The Swiss and Bavarian dialects of German are both classified as Upper German and generally share a number of features, especially in respect of consonants. In Switzerland we find such forms as 1244, 1260, 1266, 1270, 1280, 1282 1293(?), 1297, 1298, and 1282, 1309, and the undated forms , , , and , all from the same general period. [2] (Here stands for a with a short vertical line directly over it. This seems to have originated as a variant of , which by your period was pronounced like the modern German u-umlaut.) The predominance of and for the vowel of the first syllable strongly suggests that it was pronounced with a u-umlaut. It is also noticeable that the final consonant is in all of the forms that lack the Latinizing endings <-is> and <-a>. There is more variation in the middle of the name, but it is clear that the of was lost more often than it was kept and that there was a strong tendency to replace the \g\ sound of <-gard> with a \k\ sound. We therefore think that \LU"-kart\ is a likely Swiss pronunciation of the name in your period; it might also be appropriate in parts of Austria at the very beginning of your period. In much of Germany, however, the vowel originally written developed into a new sound, a diphthong written . This change first appeared in the 12th century, in the part of Austria known as Kaernten (Carinthia). From there it spread north and west, extending through Austria and Bavaria in the 13th century and on up into Silesia and Bohemia in the 14th century; it never reached Switzerland. [3] Thus, we might expect the name to have been something like in the Austrian dialects of your period. Documentary evidence for this form is provided by the name , which was recorded in Silesia in 1400. means 'Liutgard-er', i.e., 'husband or son of a woman named '. [4] That is, by 1400 the name could be spelled in Silesia. This shows that the vowel in the first syllable really was subject to the change from to , and we know that this change occurred in the 13th century in Austria, so we can assume that is appropriate for most of your period. The in is just a spelling variant of , but the probably represents the rasping \kh\ sound spelled in Scottish and German instead of a plain \k\ sound. It's possible that this variant was also used in Austrian dialects, but our sources are inadequate to settle the question. Whether it was or not, we think it likely that the plain \k\ sound was used. We therefore recommend as our best guess at a likely 13th or 14th century Austrian form of the name, though may well be another reasonable possibility. In modern German the standard pronunciation of is similar to that of English in , but this was not the pronunciation in your period. That, so far as we know, was a diphthong that does not occur in modern English or modern standard German. It seems to have been pronounced something like an o-umlaut rapidly followed by a u-umlaut; you can approximate quite closely by saying the English word with your lips rounded and pursed. [5] Many records in your period were written in Latin, so it's worth asking how the name would have been written in such records. The Swiss Latinizations ( and all of the versions ending in <-is>) show how much variation was possible. Most are superficial Latinizations, basically just spoken forms with a Latin ending pasted on; (and , though it doesn't appear in the Swiss data) may be more in the nature of 'standardized' Latinizations independent of local dialect. Throughout medieval Europe there was a tendency for Latinization to become more superficial over time, and the Swiss data show this tendency in full bloom in the 13th century. Thus, we think that is a likely Latinized form for your period; might also be possible, though we suspect that it is more likely early in your period than late. is another Latinized form; it probably represents German forms and . These are short forms of , a name that was very popular throughout medieval Germany. These forms, however, are primarily northern and are therefore probably not a good choice for an Austrian name. [6] Our best guess at a likely Austrian form is , a form found in 1296 in the Upper Rhine region and as a byname in 1408 in Silesia. It would have been pronounced roughly \AH-d@l-hayt\, where \@\ stands for the indistinct vowel spelled in and , and \ay\ is pronounced as in . [7, 8] is a variant of the man's name . In our Swiss data it appears as 12th c., 1245, 1250; as 1284, 1290; and as 1297, 1301. Since is just a spelling variant of , we can safely infer that the spoken form was . [9] In the dialect area just north of Bavaria and Austria, however, we find a slightly different range of forms: 1335, 1384 = 1399, 1384, and 1303 = 1304. [10] These, which are probably a better guide to the contemporary Austrian pronunciations of the name, suggest that would be a reasonable form for the middle of your period. looks like a reasonable choice by the end of your period, and for the beginning we might guess at a conservative or . [11] is typical of the way a man might use his father's name, in this case , as a byname, i.e., with no grammatical changes. A woman named whose father was named might similar appear in records as , but there's a good chance that the byname would be modified by addition of the feminine suffix <-in>, as in the names 1300 and 1365; the name would then appear as . [12, 13, 14] In a conservative Latin document the same name might have been written 'Leukart Hiltebrant's daughter' at the beginning of your period; later on might be more likely, or even the very superficially Latinized . is indeed an old Latin name for Vienna. It's possible that it or a derivative might have been used in a Latinized version of the name early in your period, but we haven't found an example. Indeed, both our Swiss and our Silesian data suggest that German forms of place-names were the norm in your period even in Latin records. In any case it would definitely not have been used with the German preposition . On the other hand, the few examples of Latin locative place-names that we did find involve major cities: 1259 was 'of Basel', and 1263 was 'of Strassburg(!)'. [15] Thus, something like is very likely a possible documentary form at least in the 13th century, though even in a Latin document would not be at all surprising. Note, however, that such a byname probably implies that the bearer no longer lives in Vienna; we do not recommend it for a persona that is supposed to be living in Vienna. In German there are two main possibilities. One is the prepositional form ; we haven't found any examples of this form, but similar bynames are very common, especially at the earlier end of your period. The other type is adjectival, like English for someone from London; it appears in Switzerland in the form in 1275 and 1356 and in Silesia as in 1395 and as in 1414. [16, 17, 18] In Austria and Bavaria this adjectival form was especially common and eventually largely ousted other forms; if you decide to use a locative byname, we especially recommend this form. [19] However, a woman would have used the byname in its feminine form, with the suffix <-in> or <-inne> that I discussed before. From Switzerland, for instance, we have the example of 1280 'woman from Basel', and from Silesia we have 1381 'Bavarian woman', 1355 'woman from Babenberg', and 1365 'Austrian woman'. [20, 21] Thus, we recommend the spoken forms and perhaps for a Viennese woman who no longer lives in Vienna. *** SUMMARY *** is probably not a good choice of given name if you are re-creating a 13th or 14th century Austrian name, though the full form is probably fine. is basically a good choice, though in Austria the name was most likely , with as a likely Latinized written form. So far as we can tell, in your period is very plausible as a name for an Austrian woman named whose father is named . In a Latin document it might have been written or, especially toward the earlier end of your period, as . and seem to be equally plausible names for a Viennese woman of your period who now lives somewhere else; they would probably have been Latinized as or something similar except possibly at the beginning of your period, when they might have been Latinized as . The prepositional form is also a possibility, especially at the beginning of your period, but it became less and less common as time went on. Arval Benicoeur, Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn, Antonio Miguel Santos de Borja, and Julie Stampnitzky also contributed to this letter. We hope that it has answered your questions (without telling you far more than you ever wanted to know!); if anything is not clear, please don't hesitate to write again. For the Academy, Talan Gwynek 20 July 2000 ===== References and Notes: [1] Bahlow, Hans. Unsere Vornamen im Wandel der Jahrhunderte. Grundriss der Genealogie 4 (Limburg a. d. Lahn: C. A. Starke Verlag, 1965); s.n. . [2] Socin, Adolf. Mittelhochdeutsches Namenbuch nach Oberrheinischen Quellen des Zwoelften und Dreizehnten Jahrhunderts (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966); p. 59. [3] Tschirch, Fritz. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache II: Entwicklung and Wandlungen der deutschen Sprachgestalt vom Hochmittlealter bis zur Gegenward. 3rd ed. expanded and revised by Werner Besch. Grundlagen der Germanistik 9 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1989); p. 168f. [4] Schwarz, Ernst. Sudetendeutsche Familiennamen aus vorhussitischer Zeit (Koeln: Blehlau Verlag, 1957); s.n. . [5] Walshe, M. O'C. A Middle High German Reader (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984); pp. 8-9. [6] Drosdowski, Guenther. Duden Lexikon der Vornamen, 2nd ed. (Mannheim: Dudenverlag, 1974); s.nn. , , . [7] Socin, op. cit., p. 51. [8] Schwarz, op. cit., s.n. . [9] Socin, op. cit., p. 24. [10] Schwarz op. cit., s.nn. , . In these names is Latin for 'son', and stands for Latin 'called'. The final <-i> in and is a Latin grammatical ending that puts the name into its possessive form, analogous to the <'s> in . [11] According to Schwarz, the odd form in the 1304 citation is due to confusion with another word altogether. [12] Socin, op. cit., pp. 656-8. [13] Socin, op. cit., p. 56. [14] Schwarz, op. cit., s.n. . [15] Socin, op. cit., pp. 311, 293. [16] Socin, op. cit., p. 359. [17] Brechenmacher, Josef Karlmann. Etymologisches Woerterbuch der Deutschen Familiennamen (Limburg a. d. Lahn: C. A. Starke-Verlag, 1957-60); s.n. . [18] Schwarz, op. cit., s.n. . [19] Schwarz, Ernst. Deutsche Namenforschung I: Ruf- und Familiennamen (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949); pp. 101ff. [20] Socin, op. cit., p. 660. [21] Schwarz, Sudetendeutsche Familiennamen, s.nn. , , .