New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: How do you pronounce..., and a whole lot more
in reply to a message by Tuesday
I've never heard Rosalind said like Rose-a-lind. And I've only once heard Rosamund said like Roz-a-mund.
I don't know the truth about medieval etylomogy! But it has been my understanding that the Ros- in Rosalind is derived, not from Rose the flower, but from Hros, as in Roswitha, which means Horse. Roswitha certainly has a short o sound.
Rosamund, OTOH, although it apparently also derives from Hros and would therefore have originally had the short o, was thought in medieval England to have a Latin derivation and to mean Pure Rose (Rosa Munda) or Rose of the World (Rosa Mundi). This enabled the history scribes to make several insinuations about King Henry II, who was married to the amazing Eleanor of Aquitaine but took as his mistress one Rosamund Clifford, who might once have been Rosa Munda but soon became, let's say, open to the public as the Rose, or selection, of the Whole (Male) World!
So, since etymology is extremely difficult and often subjective, I subjectively stick to the story of Ms Clifford rather than the (much older) Horse Protection version. Which has its points - a Rosamund and Philippa sibset would be fun.
The other problem arises from names like Katharine. Viewed from one angle, it becomes "pure" and is often chosen with th at in mind. I know a Chinese woman whose name means "pure" and who now goes by Katie "because of" the "meaning" of Katharine. Which seems to be such an ancient name that it originally had a negative meaning (goddess of witchcraft, instrument of torture etc), given to prevent the gods from feeling jealous of a baby with a positive name and cursing her accordingly!
So, do we go back several millennia to a meaning that has been replaced by one that people, at least from the Christian era onwards, feel more comfortable with? Or do we go democratic and let the overwhelming weight of public opinion prevail?
I would argue that it depends on context. If we are making a study of name meanings, using the oldest records and applying the methods of historical linguistics, then we have only one choice. But that choice looks increasingly pedantic if we are providing information to young parents who want something beautiful for their little girl. Even there, I'd be inclined to say that, although Katharine did once have another meaning, which was ... for the following reasons ..., for two solid millennia people have been choosing it on the basis of a meaning they prefer. And that meaning, for people who don't know the more ancient names and naming habits, does support their belief that Katharine = pure = a suitable name for a baby girl.
This has been quite a rant. Sorry!
I don't know the truth about medieval etylomogy! But it has been my understanding that the Ros- in Rosalind is derived, not from Rose the flower, but from Hros, as in Roswitha, which means Horse. Roswitha certainly has a short o sound.
Rosamund, OTOH, although it apparently also derives from Hros and would therefore have originally had the short o, was thought in medieval England to have a Latin derivation and to mean Pure Rose (Rosa Munda) or Rose of the World (Rosa Mundi). This enabled the history scribes to make several insinuations about King Henry II, who was married to the amazing Eleanor of Aquitaine but took as his mistress one Rosamund Clifford, who might once have been Rosa Munda but soon became, let's say, open to the public as the Rose, or selection, of the Whole (Male) World!
So, since etymology is extremely difficult and often subjective, I subjectively stick to the story of Ms Clifford rather than the (much older) Horse Protection version. Which has its points - a Rosamund and Philippa sibset would be fun.
The other problem arises from names like Katharine. Viewed from one angle, it becomes "pure" and is often chosen with th at in mind. I know a Chinese woman whose name means "pure" and who now goes by Katie "because of" the "meaning" of Katharine. Which seems to be such an ancient name that it originally had a negative meaning (goddess of witchcraft, instrument of torture etc), given to prevent the gods from feeling jealous of a baby with a positive name and cursing her accordingly!
So, do we go back several millennia to a meaning that has been replaced by one that people, at least from the Christian era onwards, feel more comfortable with? Or do we go democratic and let the overwhelming weight of public opinion prevail?
I would argue that it depends on context. If we are making a study of name meanings, using the oldest records and applying the methods of historical linguistics, then we have only one choice. But that choice looks increasingly pedantic if we are providing information to young parents who want something beautiful for their little girl. Even there, I'd be inclined to say that, although Katharine did once have another meaning, which was ... for the following reasons ..., for two solid millennia people have been choosing it on the basis of a meaning they prefer. And that meaning, for people who don't know the more ancient names and naming habits, does support their belief that Katharine = pure = a suitable name for a baby girl.
This has been quite a rant. Sorry!
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1