Tiempo subjetivo: ¿Es esta una fantasía? ¿O es aquella?

Charts 3.7 and 3.8 show the changing syndetic and asyndetic forms of relationship names in the ER and ALHT.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1321 1393 1446 1465 1484 1499 1511 1526 1540 1562 1584 1598

asyndetic filii mac son dochter the wif inghean

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1485 1507 1523 1540 1549 1563

asyndetic son mac

Chart 3.7. Asyndetic and syndetic forms in relationship names in the ER

Chart 3.8. Asyndetic and syndetic forms in relationship names in the ALHT

This category of names displayed the greatest variation both in terms of the number of different morphemes found and in terms of the percentages in which they are used. There is also notable variation between the two sets of records, with the ER containing five items not found in the ALHT: filii, dochter, the, wif, and inghean.

The absence of the first of these, filii, in the ALHT is likely due to the time

difference between the two sets of records as by the time the ALHT begins, filii has fallen out of use in the ER. The absence of the remaining four, meanwhile, may be due to their relative rarity (wif and dochter for instance occurs only twice)

combined with the larger number of names recorded in the ER as compared to the ALHT.

With regards to these less common elements, there may be expected to be a geographic contrast in their distribution. More specifically, inghean would seem more likely to occur in Gaelic speaking areas whilst dochter would seem more likely to be restricted to the Scots speaking areas. To some extent, this does appear to be the case with all examples of inghean names being found in Highland areas.

Additionally, one instance of dochter, Marioun Johnisdochter, occurs in Blackshaw, Dumfries (ER v.10:631 (1486-92)). However, the second example of dochter, in Matilde Huchonsdochter, is recorded in Inverness (ER v.13:660 (1509)). Although no names with inghean are recorded in the same volume as Matilde Huchonsdochter, they are in volume twelve as well as volumes seventeen and twenty, indicating that dochter and inghean may have coexisted as elements in the same areas. As the instances of each element are low in the current study, a more conclusive overview of their distribution cannot be determined.

As mentioned briefly above, one of the earliest trends in this category is the loss of Latin patronymics and matronymics containing the element filii as in William filii Matildis (ER v.1:304, 351) and Finlay filii Eugenii (ER v.5:455, 667) in the ER.

This loss in Latin forms is complete by around the mid-fifteenth century, significantly later than in Nottingham as McClure (2010a:170) reports that the majority of names in this category were in English by 1350, suggesting the period during which relationship bynames became hereditary surnames was later in Scotland. In the Scottish context, however, it is possible that the decline of filii reflects linguistic rather than onomastic change as it occurs at the time during

which Scots began to replace Latin in official documents, though ER continued to be written in Latin (see e.g. Smith, 2012: 8-9). Yet, support for denotative name

continuing later in Scotland than England is provided by other aspects of the names such as two 1512 names, the Vedouissoun (‘the widow’s son’) and the Vrychtsoun (‘the wright’s son’), which take the definite article (ER v.13:598). Additionally, another group of names which may signal that denotative naming is still in use even in the sixteenth century are patronymics where the first element is an individual’s full name (i.e. personal name and byname) and the second element is -son. One instance of such a name, Alexandro Jhoncannochsone ‘son of John Cannoch’, recorded in 1533 and 1534 (ER v.16:291, 344) is certainly denotative as the same individual is known in 1531 as Alexandro de Insulis filio quondam Johannis Canoch (‘Alexander of the Islands, son of the late John Cannoch’) (ER v.16:105). A similar set of names is found in 1577 when a number of women are listed as female heads of house and have bynames which contain inghean ‘daughter’ followed by a

personal name and surname such as Helenam Neyne Alexandrum McConnachie and Katherinam Neyne Donald Roy (ER v.20:522-523). The presence of these names, alongside the fluctuations in names containing Mac, may suggest that denotative naming lasted even longer in Gaelic speaking areas. The current findings would thus lend support to McKinley’s (1990:45) reporting that patronymic surnames (and matronymic in the case of the Vedouissoun), were still being coined in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

However, whilst filii and the may signal that a name is denotative, it does not hold that all syndetic forms of relationship bynames are denotative. The morphemes which replaced filii, -son as in Watson, as well as Gaelic Mac- as in Maccollin, were incorporated into names to such an extent that they were retained once names lost their denotative meanings. In the case of relationship names, then, form is not necessarily indicative of whether or not a name is denotative.

One consistent feature of this category is the popularity of asyndetic forms such as George. In Nottingham, McClure (2010a:169-170) reports that such forms were in the minority. Moreover, McClure (2010a:169) highlights that asyndetic names in his data were very commonly formed from personal names like Botild which would not have been currently in use, suggesting that they had been created

some time before the records began. It is therefore argued by McClure (2010a:169) and separately by McKinley (1990:97) that asyndetic names are likely among the earliest relationship surnames coined and were hereditary rather than denotative.

However, asyndetic names recorded in the ER and ALHT potentially suggest a different situation in Scotland as they are often formed using the same personal names as syndetic forms. For example, Willelmi filii Martini (1360) and Waltero Martyne (1364) are both recorded in the second volume of the ER (41, 128). To establish if these asyndetic names draw upon names which were contemporary at the time they were recorded, the People of Medieval Scotland database (PoMS) was used. PoMS gathers together all the available information on persons recorded in Scotland or related to Scotland between 1093 and 1314, making use of more than 8600 documents. Many of the personal names, including the fifty most common, are outlined by Hammond (2013:30-48). As his work focuses on an earlier phase of PoMS, covering the period 1093 to 1286, the database itself was used in instances where a name was not in Hammond’s (2013:30-48) work. It was noted whether or not each of the asyndetic names collected in the current study was recorded by Hammond (2013:30-48) or in PoMS. Overall, forty percent of the asyndetic names were recorded including several of the most common personal names during the medieval period such as Richard (fourth most common) and Adam (fifth most common) (Hammond, 2013:33). Moreover, several of the unrecorded names are hypocoristic forms of personal names which are found in Hammond (2013:30-48) and PoMS such as Davie from David, Ritchie and Dick from Richard, Rob from Robert and Watt from Walter. McKinley (1990:98) has argued that many of the shortened

personal names found in surnames may have arisen only in the thirteenth century.

McKinley (1990:100) also highlights that the formal nature of medieval documents means that longer forms of personal names are generally recorded instead of the hypocoristic forms. Further, several of the hypocoristic forms in the current study are derived from the most common personal names during the medieval period, for example, David, Richard, Robert and Walter mentioned above are all in the top fifty (Hammond, 2013:33). Considering all these factors together, it seems reasonable to conclude that these hypocoristic forms were in use during the medieval period. If the hypocoristic forms are added to the names recorded by Hammond (2013:30-48) or in PoMS, the percentage of asyndetic names formed from

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1321 1393 1446 1465 1484 1499 1511 1526 1540 1562 1584 1598

asyndetic de del man er

contemporary personal names rises to fifty-six. In Scotland, then, asyndetic relationship names appear to be commonly based on forenames contemporary to the medieval period.

Finally, as mentioned in section 3.3.2, of the names unrecorded by surname dictionaries, a large proportion belonged to the relationship category. Amongst these were a number of patronymics and metronymics with inghean or mac such as Neynewin (ER v.20:523) and Macgillecalumbeg (ER v.12:707) as well as patronymics with both mac and son such as McIntyreson (ER v.12:637). One explanation for the last set of names may be a clerk translating Gaelic mac into son.