From: Peter Stewart Sent: 31 May 2017 00:50 > > Tamsin is probably the closest approximation to an English "vernacular" feminine form of Thomas (which itself is, of course, a name exotic to the British Isles). > > But then it's not a point worth fussing over, as Thomasina is a perfectly sensible alternative. The crackpot idea that English communication should avoid latinity - much less in a post half-full of latinate words - is too silly to contemplate. No sensible researcher would waste a moment over such nonsense. > > Peter Stewart ------------------------------- I'm afraid you're out of step with most academic historians of late medieval England there, Peter. As I've explained several times before, it is usual for record publishing societies to adopt the principles proposed by Roy Hunnisett in Indexing for Editors (British Records Association, London, 1972). At pp 56-7 he says: 'Forenames of Englishmen should be given in their modern English spelling , or their most common one if there is more than one, in calendars as in indexes. This means that when necessary they must be translated from Latin and French and modernised from their older English spelling. The Latin forms present the greatest difficulties. The main problems arise from names such as Matildis, Reginaldus, Jacobus, Elias and others which can represent what are now two distinct forenames. It is suggested that when applied to medieval Englishmen such names be translated into the form which has given rise to most English surnames - Maud, Reynold, James and Ellis in the examples cited ...' 'There may be good reasons to depart from the rule in particular cases; if so it is advised that such reasons be explained at an appropriate place in the volume. It is impossible to legislate for the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when increasingly the same Latin names can represent the 'continental' as well as the 'native' forms when applied to Englishmen. Each editor has to decide which are the better for his people in the period of his documents.' The principle behind the reference to surnames is that they tell us what was the contemporary vernacular form represented by the Latin translation. Consequently we use Hugh not Hugo, Lucy not Lucia, Ann not Anna, Mary not Maria, Cicely (or Cecily) not Cecilia, Pernel/Parnel not Petronilla. Of course, as Hunnisett says, there is no point in being obsessively doctrinaire on the point, and no one is going to care greatly whether Thomasine or Thomasina is given. But it is important for record translators to have principles and to apply them consistently, and if you have adopted Hunnisett's approach (as most do) then when faced with Thomasia the logical consequence is to render it as Thomasine. Tamsin, a form unrecorded before the early modern period so far as I am aware, and even then largely limited to Cornwall and the far south west, would be the crackpot option. Matt Tompkins

On 31/05/2017 8:21 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: <snip> > Of course, as Hunnisett says, there is no point in being obsessively doctrinaire on the point, and no one is going to care greatly whether Thomasine or Thomasina is given. But it is important for record translators to have principles and to apply them consistently, and if you have adopted Hunnisett's approach (as most do) then when faced with Thomasia the logical consequence is to render it as Thomasine. Tamsin, a form unrecorded before the early modern period so far as I am aware, and even then largely limited to Cornwall and the far south west, would be the crackpot option. Thomas Hardy in *The Return of the Native* called his heroine alternately Tamsin and Thomasin. Most probably he considered "Thomasine" and rejected it as too Frenchified and/or precious. Peter Stewart