From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Missing subject header
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:32:35 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Greetings from Arval!

evilted@vesta.unm.edu (who gave no name) made a good point about the sorts
of epithets we've been discussing:

> What I have found is that 'of' was not used, but it is often the only way
> to translate names correctly.  Are these names 'twinkie' in their English
> translation but not in the original?

You are absolutely right; the problem is one of translation.  When we talk
about names using "of", we are hampered by the limitations of modern
English grammar.  Most other languages have (and use) a genitive case,
which can properly be translated into English using "of."  For example, the
Latin name "Richardus Herberti" literally means "Herbert's Richard" or
"Richard of Herbert".  It is a common form of patronymic found in England
through much of our period.  Its intent was "Richard, son of Herbert."  In
Norman French, we find the analogous "Guillaume d'Auberi", in Breton French
"Francois a Jean", in Italian "Pietro Sebastiani", in Spanish "Hernando
Sanchez."  Patronymics are not the sort of epithet that Tadhg has been
discussing, but the point is that genitive forms are commonly used in
bynames, and can properly be translated using "of".  The question remains
what range of epithets were used in this form in various period languages.
One of the examples I posted was the attested epithet "cum Girfalconibus",
literally "with Gyrfalcon".  I think it is no stretch at all to render this
into English as "of the Gyrfalcon".

We do allow bynames to be translated into English from other languages.
While some might prefer the German name "Johann Hamburger" (in which
"Hamburger" is a genitive form of "Hamburg"), we will also welcome and
register "Johann of Hamburg".  Indeed, the rules for submission explicitly
note this fact.  It seems reasonable to extend the same allowance to the
translation of other kinds of epithets.  There are two different, valid
approaches to choosing an authentic name in the SCA.  Some people choose a
name which is grammatically correct for the language spoken by their
persona.  Others choose a name which has the same meaning (and thus the
same effect in usage) as a name which would have been used by their
persona.  I find these approaches equally valid for our re-creation.

The problem becomes even trickier when we observe that names in some
languages did not always use articles or prepositions or a genitive case.
Consider a name like the French "Pierre Cheval".  Is this properly
translated "Peter Horse" or "Peter the Horse" or "Peter of the Horse"?  The
name is most likely to have been the name of a merchant of horses, or the
owner of a particularly noticeable horse.  In Middle English, the proper
translation is "Peter Horse", but that doesn't carry the right meaning in
modern English.  If you want people in the SCA to understand the name as it
would have been understood in period, you have to use "Peter of the Horse".
Is this going too far?  Does it sacrifice too much of medieval grammar for
modern comprehension?  Perhaps so, perhaps not.  I am certainly not
convinced strongly enough to condemn the second choice.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com