In das KB von Wolfsdorf finde ich in frühere Zeiten statt -us oft -g.
filius - filig
Jacobus - Jacobg
und das mitt fast alle Namen.
hat das eine Bedeutung ?
Das ist kein g, sondern ein ein Kürzel für die Endung -us. Beim Abschreiben kann man also gleich getrost Jacobus statt Jacobg, Petrus statt Petrg etc. schreiben.
Rund 1755 und früher haben die Muter in die Taufeintrage keine Familiename?
Was ist die Bedeutung ?
Galt als unwichtig. Wichtig war nur der Name des Mannes.
It is my understanding that the ending -us is Latin nominative case for the declension used for male nouns, e.g., filius.
Filius = Sohn
Jacobus = Jacob/Jakob
For example, this is what you will see for the name of a child in a Latin baptismal record, while the father could be listed as Jacobi for the genitive (possessive) case.
Hope this helps.
Viele Gr��e,
Janet (Ebaugh)
goertz@FoxValley.net wrote:
Die Endung -ius wurde of als -y gechrieben, bedeutet aber -ius, und
ist ein "Schnoerkel.
Also Anthony = Anthonius.
Since the official language of the church was Latin, first names were
Latinized in the records. The genitive case is used in possessive
constructions only, e.g. 'John's son'. But that does not have to do with the
original question. There might only be a misunderstanding as far as the
suffix itself is concerned.
Perhaps I was misunderstanding the original question about the endings of filius and Jacobus, as I thought they were trying to equate them to endings in Deutsch, but not understanding Latin case endings.
Also, perhaps I wasn't clear in my reply. I know anyone's name would be Latinized, and in the nominative case, definitely. I have, however, seen many times where the parents of a baptized child were listed in the genitive case (easily apparent when the child's name was the same as a parent's name), used in the sense of "Maria, [daughter] of Johann and Maria," where both parents' were in the genitive case. This only seems to happen when the whole record is written by hand, and I have not seen it when the pre-printed forms are used. Also, it is not seen consistently - I guess it depended on the Latin abilities of the writer, or perhaps the native language of the writer and the construction used in that tongue, whatever it was. Maybe that is not seen in Latin records in Deutschland?? Anyway, that inconsistency is why I used "could be listed" when referring to the form of the father's name.
Regards,
Janet
Janet,
Since the official language of the church was Latin, first names were
Latinized in the records. The genitive case is used in possessive
constructions only, e.g. 'John's son'. But that does not have to do with the
original question. There might only be a misunderstanding as far as the
suffix itself is concerned.