In a word--WOW!!!  Marge:)

On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:00 PM, David P. Delgado wrote:

Jose,

It's been a long time since I tried to make use of my specialty- Spanish.  I'd like to try to present my understanding of the use of language by Spanish speakers.  As I recall, the language was first formed by the semitic linguists in the eighth century.  Before 711 A.D. there was a tremendous diversity in terms of languages spoken in the Iberian peninsula.  If you were to read the poems which are considered the earliest forms of Spanish you would barely recognize the language.  After 1492 the newly-formed "Spanish" people retained a very negative, resentful and vengeful attitude toward anything or anyone of semitic origins.  The government (monarchy) began a process of "ethnic cleansing" which extended into "purifying" the language.  Up until the early years of the 16th century no one even attempted to make rules for spelling.  The decision to make rules came from a small number of self-appointed experts not from the people who used the language.

The early visitors to the western hemisphere spoke a Spanish which was almost 100% phonetic.  The language was capable of duplicating virtually every sound produced in other languages.  One of the most obvious signs is the so-called "x" in 16th century Spanish.  The sound originally came from a semitic language- (example: xoarex, xuares became "juarez" due to the linguists' felt need to purify the language).  Add to this scenario the fact that the western half of the iberian peninsula already had a very complete, beautiful language, gallego-portugues, the northeasterners had catalan, the far north had basque and there were other smaller groups with other languages (like the gitanos).  In addition iberians possess the incredibly intense characteristic of rugged individualism which resists any mandate to change. 

So, you have a small group of intellectuals mandating rules, slow and limited means of communication, and tremendous distances to cover.  Besides all of the above, priests constituted the most effective group of educated change agents.  Some of them were trained in different countries.  That is why "th" equals "t" as in French.  The change from "s" to "z" at the end of names was purely arbitrary.  That change has nothing to do with portuguese vs. spanish.  At one time all of the users of Spanish wrote the same names in the same way.  For centuries it didn't matter whether one wrote "joan or juan".  The sound is almost identical.  The sound of "y" can also be written with a "ll".  The main idea I'm trying to get across is that the language was developed by linguists.  Linguists tend to work from observations (empiricists).  The "Rulesmakers" at first were merely grammarians interested in functioning as authorities.  They knew the "right" way and everyone should shut up, listen and do as they were told.

Mexico, as we have all seen in our family history research.  Brough together all of these elements.  We see records which reflect all of the various phases of the development of early Spanish to modern Spanish.  The best way to approach the situation, in my opinion, is to observe and record.  I have noticed a pattern of spelling which can tell me at a glance the level of education, the place of origin, and the century of origin of a record at a glance.  All of you have seen the same thing.  Oh yes, one more element: when I found my ggf record in Ags. Ags....his baptismal record shows his name as Eustacio.  Yet his marriage record shows Austacio as do the baptism records of his children.  I call it the "countryfication" factor.  It's easier to make a new blend-au- than it is to articulate each of the vowels-e..u..- in a name.  This is what makes genealogy such an interesting challenge for those of us with ancestors with Spanish names.  It's complex, complicated. frustrating and incredibly time-consuming fun!  If you are still reading...avoid falling into the trap of considering this or that to be "right or wrong".  Ed Serros hit the nail on the head.  The notion of "purity" is a lot of cr_p.  (I hate to use technical lingo.) 

So Jose, (Hoce, Josse, Joze, Josef, Joseph, Je., J., etc. all of which derive from "Yusuf") you really pushed my Talk button.  I hope I sort of answered your question.  

David in Albany CA
-----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph Puentes <makas@...>
>Sent: Dec 21, 2005 3:58 PM
>To: ranchos@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [ranchos] Names 's' and 'z'/HOHOHO
>
>
>This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask but kind of 
>forget every time I get to the key board. I guess its time (been time) 
>for me to start writing myself notes so i'll remember later [here's a 
>confession---I've been writing myself notes but half the time I forget 
>to look at the notes].
>
>anyway what is the take on  Gonzalez and Gonsalez and Gonzales and 
>Gonsales?
>
>Since I've started studying genealogy I've always been told not to get 
>hung up on spelling, but that seemed to be coming from the Anglo point 
>of view. I tend to believe that we as well shouldn't get hung up on 
>spelling from the Mexican point of view. Do you all agree?
>
>Reason I'm asking is that I seem to have read something when I first 
>started genealogy that either the the ending with the Z or the ending 
>with the S meant something like Jewish roots for folks of Hispanic 
>hertiage: Peres v. Perez
>
>I don't know and don't really know how they can prove something like 
>that with a bunch of folks that "SEEM" to be spelling the same persons 
>name in all different possible ways. . .what does that mean that to one 
>scribe he was Jewish and to the next one he wasn't. Or is it as it seems 
>to be that certain ones weren't very literate and spelled the names 
>phonetically?
>
>And since the Jewish subject came up does anyone know of good resources 
>for Askenazi (sp) Jews in Mexico. I seem to be of the tribe of Levi (a 
>priest) if my DNA indications are to be believed?
>
>joseph
>
>ps:  I hope you all have a Feliz Navidad. I wish we lived close by 
>because we could have a great party couldn't we.
>
>
>
>glo Sandoval-Fuentes wrote:
>
>>Or even my dads name is Augapito.
>>
>>
>>
>>               ~~glo~~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Margarita Vallazza <TeaCozyGran@...>
>>Reply-To: ranchos@yahoogroups.com
>>To: ranchos@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: Odd names WAS Re: [ranchos] Re: Godina Family
>>Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:57:34 -0600
>>
>>Aren't you glad to not be named Reducindo or Reducinda?  One of my
>>ancestors is named Narciso, another Prudencio, another Petronilo, and
>>another Zenobio...what names!!!!  Marge:)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>
>-- 


David P. Delgado

I know my last name is Fuentes, but so many people always put a Z on the end
instead of the S.

              ~~glo~~







From: "John Gonzalez" <1gnzlz@...>
Reply-To: ranchos@yahoogroups.com
To: <ranchos@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ranchos] Names 's' and 'z'/HOHOHO
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:15:42 -0800

Hi Joseph:

Re: González.

The very first González in my line was, Alonso González de Hermosillo, who
was born about 1467 in Heromosilla, Burgos, Spain. The González spelling
was kept all the way down to the 9th generation, where it shows up spelled:
"Gonzáles" At the same time the "de Hermosillo" part was dropped. The
"González" spelling shows up again in the next (10th) generation and it
remained that way in the family to the present day.

I remember reading that in Spain, the names were spelled with the "ez",
and in Portugal with the "es". I believe that most errors were made by the
person writing the church records and interpreting the names.

1gnzlz@...
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Joseph Puentes
  To: ranchos@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:58 PM
  Subject: [ranchos] Names 's' and 'z'/HOHOHO

This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask but kind of forget
every time I get to the key board. I guess its time (been time) for me to
start writing myself notes so i'll remember later [here's a
confession---I've been writing myself notes but half the time I forget to
look at the notes].

anyway what is the take on Gonzalez and Gonsalez and Gonzales and
Gonsales?

Since I've started studying genealogy I've always been told not to get
hung up on spelling, but that seemed to be coming from the Anglo point of
view. I tend to believe that we as well shouldn't get hung up on spelling
from the Mexican point of view. Do you all agree?

Reason I'm asking is that I seem to have read something when I first
started genealogy that either the the ending with the Z or the ending with
the S meant something like Jewish roots for folks of Hispanic hertiage:
Peres v. Perez

I don't know and don't really know how they can prove something like that
with a bunch of folks that "SEEM" to be spelling the same persons name in
all different possible ways. . .what does that mean that to one scribe he
was Jewish and to the next one he wasn't. Or is it as it seems to be that
certain ones weren't very literate and spelled the names phonetically?

And since the Jewish subject came up does anyone know of good resources
for Askenazi (sp) Jews in Mexico. I seem to be of the tribe of Levi (a
priest) if my DNA indications are to be believed?

  joseph

ps: I hope you all have a Feliz Navidad. I wish we lived close by
because we could have a great party couldn't we.

There's no difference between the S and Z or X. Remember Xerex or
Xeres, Jerez and so on. People didn't know how to spell then and today
they still don't. We all make miztakex sumtimz. Marge:)