I have acquired some of these acts of parliament for the 1700s. They relate to family settlements of real and personal estates and are a fertile source of genealogical information. Does anyone know why it was necessary to use parliament? ~~ Keith Elmsted, Kent --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004

<<Many books are written on name-origins, and they sell in the thousands, and many believe them; but serious students of the topic ought never to lose sight of the fact that the authors are making conclusions and deductions on the shakiest of grounds - and on even shakier logic.>> I think the place-name and surname experts would be the first to agree that it is seldom possible to prove the origin of any name beyond doubt - what they would say is that they offer the most likely explanation. (Though the reverse is certainly true - it is quite often possible to show that a proposed explanation cannot be correct). And they would say further that they base their explanations on (i) the earliest recorded forms of a name (not its modern form - the first thing any expert will tell you is that suggestions for origins based on modern forms are a complete waste of time) and (ii) detailed and extensive knowledge of the languages in use at the time the names were formed, and (most importantly) the way those languages changed over time. I've heard Margaret Gelling say that it is impossible to study place-name origins without a background in languages and linguistics. <<The City of Hereford is named for the place where armies forded - according to the assertions of several authors, on the grounds that "here" or similar (I forget) meant "army" back in the Olden Tymes. But it's a guess! My own guess is that the river Wye at that point was called the Arrow, which is an up-stream name for it today. So Hereford was formerly Arrer-ford. That's a guess, too. It will pay us in the long run to be cautious about claiming certainty where none exists by any objective measure. Oxford = Oxes' ford? Oh, please!>> Both these examples serve to illustrate the experts' methodology rather well. David Pott has already shown how the earliest spellings of Oxford, combined with a knowledge of Anglo-Saxon vocabulary and grammar, show that Oxford does indeed most probably mean the Ford of the Oxen. As for Hereford and the Arrow, the reason place-name experts like Ekwall and his modern successors do not connect the two is that they look in early sources like the Cartularium Saxonicum, where they find that the Arrow and Hereford appear in the same document from 958 as the Erga and Hereford - not as the Arrer and Arrerford. Of course, one document can be misleading, but if all subsequent spellings of Hereford are similar, and none of them show much resemblance to the name of the river, then a connection between the two names can be regarded as pretty unlikely. There is also the fact that 'here' appears in a number of place-names, few of them associated with rivers called anything similar, and some of them not associated with rivers at all. Many of them describe roads and fords, and the Anglo-Saxon word 'here' (meaning army) is the most obvious candidate to explain them. Further, they find that in other records of the same period the Wye is called the Guoy, Waega, Waia, Waie, Gui, Guy, Guai, Weye, names which show that its present form developed from a Celtic form like Gway - ie that it was not formerly called the Arrer (incidentally the Arrow is the name of an up-stream tributary of the Wye, not of the Wye itself). This is not guess-work, nor shaky logic, and certainly not folk-etymology - it is the application of research into early forms of the place-names and the languages current at the time. Regards, Matt

Hi All, I have another word which stumps me - so am putting it here in the context and perhaps I can get some help with that also. It appears thus Item in trace and collars saddles and "womboes" . Many thanks Liz

Good Morning Everyone - another day passes! What of "HEREFORD" indeed? The concise 'Oxford' Dictionary of Placenames by Elert Ekwall 4th Edition, is quite explicit. An Army Ford - The year 958 is the year he quotes also sourced by Cartularium Saxonicom, ed. Birch, London, 1885-93. Quoting also Domesday Book. He however goes on to elucidate: "If this is the meaning, the reference would be to a ford where a marching column could pass in closed order. Also Herford in Germany". He further says after referencing other possibilities: "Hereford is not used as a ford where a Roman road crosses a river. This was Straetford. But a Hereford seems to have been an important ford". "HERE" by itself also means Host or Multitude. I think this adds quite nicely to Gordon's summing. BE READY but not TOO READY! Kind Regards Roy & June Cox www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Barlow [mailto:barlow@candw.ky] Sent: 15 August 2004 00:11 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] settlements' names > The deductions are made from the earliest records of names, by people that have in depth knowledge and understanding the ancient languages used in England. > How then do you account for the spelling in 958 of "Hereford" (ie > unchanged), "here" in old english means army no guessing involved. > Unless a student somewhere discovers a hereto unknown alternative meaning of > the Old English word "oxna" it cannot have had other meaning in the C10th > when it was recorded as Oxnaforda. > The study of place names by the Institute can be of great help to historians > to gain an understanding of an area and how the landscape has been used and > developed. > David Pott Well, I mean no disrespect to the professional experts - whether of place-names in England or WMD in Iraq. They base their conclusions on the information they have. However, there is much information they don't have. If Hereford was first named in 958, and some professional scribe witnessed the naming of the fording-place, then fair enough. But was it, and did he? It may be harsh to apply the word "guess" to an unproven deduction, but as with military intelligence if the professionals fail to think "outside the box" they may make mistakes. There is a tendency to get hung up on *written* evidence. My guess is that the river was first forded at what came to be called Hereford long before the name "Hereford" was written down - and incidentally long before "old english" came to be spoken there. The first forders there were quite possibly the antecedents of the Celts - or, at least, the namers of the river that came to be called "Arrow". That's my guess, but I am happy to tolerate other guesses. The same line of reasoning applies to Oxford. What professional expert would bet his pension that it was speakers of "Old English" who first crossed the river (the Exe, probably, however said and spelt) at what became Oxford? In effect, David has implied that "people that have in depth knowledge and understanding the ancient languages used in England" have deduced that nobody ever crossed the river at Oxford before "Old English" (which isn't all that ancient a language, after all) was spoken there. OR, that no preceding river-crossers bothered to name the place. Even professionals can develop a weakness for folk-etymology. Gordon ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== Going away for a while? Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com

Hi, Has anyone come across a word, which I have found in an inventory which appears to be spelled arcke? It appears about 3 times in this inventory and I can't find anything like it in the dictionary. It definitely isn't arche, as everywhere else the h is written in the old form of 1615. Many thanks Liz Waring

Nice for starters. Wish there was one for Wales too. - Denne meldingen er sjekket for virus av Norton Anti-virus - This message was checked for virus by Norton Anti-virus ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Pott" <davpott@hotmail.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] settlements' names > The Institute have put a pilot scheme website up > http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/ins/ to which it is planned to add all > of the main place names of England (the next county to go up will be Kent > thanks to funding by Kent Archaeological Society). > > > David Pott > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Good point. The distinction between presumptions and facts. Guilty as well. - Denne meldingen er sjekket for virus av Norton Anti-virus - This message was checked for virus by Norton Anti-virus ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Barlow" <barlow@candw.ky> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:33 PM Subject: [OEL] settlements' names > With respect to all, I don't think any of us should get too hung up on identifying the exact origins of place-names. We can never know for an indisputable fact that any -ton or -ck or -wick or -ham or -m or -thorpe or -ing etc was named for a particular individual. All we can say is that it is compatible with such naming. "What else could it be?" is not a proper explanation, and it is not logical. The same applies to surnames, of course. We say that the surname Butcher comes from an ancestor who was a butcher, when we really haven't got the slightest evidence beyond the name itself. Many books are written on name-origins, and they sell in the thousands, and many believe them; but serious students of the topic ought never to lose sight of the fact that the authors are making conclusions and deductions on the shakiest of grounds - and on even shakier logic. > > I do not believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, but the evidence for the assertions was and is infinitely greater than the evidence for the asserted origins of most names. Two thousand years from now, school textbooks will be identifying Saddam with Sodom. Well, and why not? What else could it have meant? > > The City of Hereford is named for the place where armies forded - according to the assertions of several authors, on the grounds that "here" or similar (I forget) meant "army" back in the Olden Tymes. But it's a guess! My own guess is that the river Wye at that point was called the Arrow, which is an up-stream name for it today. So Hereford was formerly Arrer-ford. That's a guess, too. It will pay us in the long run to be cautious about claiming certainty where none exists by any objective measure. Oxford = Oxes' ford? Oh, please! > > Gordon Barlow > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

> Many books are written on name-origins, and they sell in the thousands, and many believe them; but serious students of the topic ought >never to lose sight of the fact that the authors are making conclusions and deductions on the shakiest of grounds - and on even shakier logic. This my be true of popular publications but not so for the on going series by the English Place-Name Society nor work by the "Institute for Name-Studies" at University of Nottingham. Nor for that matter any publication by Gelling or Cameron. The deductions are made from the earliest records of names, far from being made on the shakiest of grounds and logic, they are made by people that have in depth knowledge and understanding the ancient languages used in England. > > The City of Hereford is named for the place where armies forded - according to the assertions of several authors, on the grounds that "here" >or similar (I forget) meant "army" back in the Olden Tymes. But it's a guess! My own guess is that the river Wye at that point was called the >Arrow, which is an up-stream name for it today. So Hereford was formerly Arrer-ford. How then do you account for the spelling in 958 of "Hereford" (ie unchanged), "here" in old english means army no guessing involved. > It will pay us in the long run to be cautious about claiming certainty where none exists by any objective measure. Oxford = Oxes' ford? Oh, please! Unless a student somewhere discovers a hereto unknown alternative meaning of the Old English word "oxna" it cannot have had other meaning in the C10th when it was recorded as Oxnaforda. The study of place names by the Institute can be of great help to historians to gain an understanding of an area and how the landscape has been used and developed. In my experience, corresponding and talking to Dr Paul Cullen the editor for Kent, the Institute will not make any suggestion to meanings of place names they can't relate to one of our languages. The Institute have put a pilot scheme website up http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/ins/ to which it is planned to add all of the main place names of England (the next county to go up will be Kent thanks to funding by Kent Archaeological Society). David Pott

Hi Liz, I believe an ark was a wooden bin for dry stores. Regards Martyn Loveys PS - I've just looked it up in Rosemary Milward's "Glossary of Household, Farming and Trade Terms from Probate Inventories" and her definition is as follows:- "A chest or coffer with domed lid; a bin for meal, bread, and also used in the house, for clothes, etc." - hope that helps. Ron and Liz Waring <edwaring@bigpond.com> wrote: Hi, Has anyone come across a word, which I have found in an inventory which appears to be spelled arcke? It appears about 3 times in this inventory and I can't find anything like it in the dictionary. It definitely isn't arche, as everywhere else the h is written in the old form of 1615. Many thanks Liz Waring ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

> The deductions are made from the earliest records of names, by people that have in depth knowledge and understanding the ancient languages used in England. > How then do you account for the spelling in 958 of "Hereford" (ie > unchanged), "here" in old english means army no guessing involved. > Unless a student somewhere discovers a hereto unknown alternative meaning of > the Old English word "oxna" it cannot have had other meaning in the C10th > when it was recorded as Oxnaforda. > The study of place names by the Institute can be of great help to historians > to gain an understanding of an area and how the landscape has been used and > developed. > David Pott Well, I mean no disrespect to the professional experts - whether of place-names in England or WMD in Iraq. They base their conclusions on the information they have. However, there is much information they don't have. If Hereford was first named in 958, and some professional scribe witnessed the naming of the fording-place, then fair enough. But was it, and did he? It may be harsh to apply the word "guess" to an unproven deduction, but as with military intelligence if the professionals fail to think "outside the box" they may make mistakes. There is a tendency to get hung up on *written* evidence. My guess is that the river was first forded at what came to be called Hereford long before the name "Hereford" was written down - and incidentally long before "old english" came to be spoken there. The first forders there were quite possibly the antecedents of the Celts - or, at least, the namers of the river that came to be called "Arrow". That's my guess, but I am happy to tolerate other guesses. The same line of reasoning applies to Oxford. What professional expert would bet his pension that it was speakers of "Old English" who first crossed the river (the Exe, probably, however said and spelt) at what became Oxford? In effect, David has implied that "people that have in depth knowledge and understanding the ancient languages used in England" have deduced that nobody ever crossed the river at Oxford before "Old English" (which isn't all that ancient a language, after all) was spoken there. OR, that no preceding river-crossers bothered to name the place. Even professionals can develop a weakness for folk-etymology. Gordon

With respect to all, I don't think any of us should get too hung up on identifying the exact origins of place-names. We can never know for an indisputable fact that any -ton or -ck or -wick or -ham or -m or -thorpe or -ing etc was named for a particular individual. All we can say is that it is compatible with such naming. "What else could it be?" is not a proper explanation, and it is not logical. The same applies to surnames, of course. We say that the surname Butcher comes from an ancestor who was a butcher, when we really haven't got the slightest evidence beyond the name itself. Many books are written on name-origins, and they sell in the thousands, and many believe them; but serious students of the topic ought never to lose sight of the fact that the authors are making conclusions and deductions on the shakiest of grounds - and on even shakier logic. I do not believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, but the evidence for the assertions was and is infinitely greater than the evidence for the asserted origins of most names. Two thousand years from now, school textbooks will be identifying Saddam with Sodom. Well, and why not? What else could it have meant? The City of Hereford is named for the place where armies forded - according to the assertions of several authors, on the grounds that "here" or similar (I forget) meant "army" back in the Olden Tymes. But it's a guess! My own guess is that the river Wye at that point was called the Arrow, which is an up-stream name for it today. So Hereford was formerly Arrer-ford. That's a guess, too. It will pay us in the long run to be cautious about claiming certainty where none exists by any objective measure. Oxford = Oxes' ford? Oh, please! Gordon Barlow

Just to throw another spanner into the works here, we have, locally, a hill called Dan Bank. This looks suspiciously like a Danish connection but the hill was in fact named after a family that held the farm there whose surname was Dan. Now you could suggest that the original family was a Danish one but the connection gets a little remote the further you go back, don't you think? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tompkins, M.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 11:24 AM Subject: RE: [OEL] Thorps and Throps > <<I must disagree on both points, Matt. Dinton is so often Danington, > whicth the long tradition of the Danish battle both there and at Bledlow (with some AS Chronicle back up, which I haven't the leisure to check now, but have seen). The interesting story of the plant mutation because of the presence of so much blood in the earth at one spot is backed up by the presence of these plants, to which a regular pilgrimage used to be made, in simpler times, and the story undoubtedly passed down in this way.>> > > > But Eve, the fact of a battle having been fought with the Danes is not evidence for Danes having settled on its site. In the early days they were extremely mobile and fought battles in every part of the country, including areas of southern and southwestern England which were never settled by them. > > And I don't think it's right that Dinton has often been spelled Danington, at least not in early records, which is what counts. Place-names of Buckinghamshire gives 19 early spellings of the name from 32 different sources (from 1086 to the second half of the 16th century). Only one of them begins 'Dan-', and that is the one in Domesday Book (Danitone), a notoriously unreliable source for early forms of names (because the Norman scribes found Anglo-Saxon names very difficult). All the other 31 sources began Dun- or Don-, or occasionally Den- or Din/Dyn-. > > So I don't think there's really any justification for rejecting the explanations given by Ekwall and the authors of Place-names of Buckinghamshire. > > > <<And Thorp is definitely the Danish element for hamlet.>> > > > But the problem is that thorp is also definitely an Anglo-Saxon word with the same meaning, and a Middle English word with the same meaning. So the place-name Eythrope could have been formed in any of these languages, and we must look for pointers as to which. > > All the clues point towards a non-Danish origin. I listed them in my previous posting, so I won't repeat them now, but will just say that these are not my personal theories - I am merely repeating the views of all the place-name expert, based on those clues. As well as the two authorities I mentioned before, see also Kenneth Cameron's 'English Place-names', p 78 (in the 1961 edition, or p 80 in the 1996 edition), which mentions Eythrope specifically. > > with best wishes, > > Matt > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

<<I must disagree on both points, Matt. Dinton is so often Danington, whicth the long tradition of the Danish battle both there and at Bledlow (with some AS Chronicle back up, which I haven't the leisure to check now, but have seen). The interesting story of the plant mutation because of the presence of so much blood in the earth at one spot is backed up by the presence of these plants, to which a regular pilgrimage used to be made, in simpler times, and the story undoubtedly passed down in this way.>> But Eve, the fact of a battle having been fought with the Danes is not evidence for Danes having settled on its site. In the early days they were extremely mobile and fought battles in every part of the country, including areas of southern and southwestern England which were never settled by them. And I don't think it's right that Dinton has often been spelled Danington, at least not in early records, which is what counts. Place-names of Buckinghamshire gives 19 early spellings of the name from 32 different sources (from 1086 to the second half of the 16th century). Only one of them begins 'Dan-', and that is the one in Domesday Book (Danitone), a notoriously unreliable source for early forms of names (because the Norman scribes found Anglo-Saxon names very difficult). All the other 31 sources began Dun- or Don-, or occasionally Den- or Din/Dyn-. So I don't think there's really any justification for rejecting the explanations given by Ekwall and the authors of Place-names of Buckinghamshire. <<And Thorp is definitely the Danish element for hamlet.>> But the problem is that thorp is also definitely an Anglo-Saxon word with the same meaning, and a Middle English word with the same meaning. So the place-name Eythrope could have been formed in any of these languages, and we must look for pointers as to which. All the clues point towards a non-Danish origin. I listed them in my previous posting, so I won't repeat them now, but will just say that these are not my personal theories - I am merely repeating the views of all the place-name expert, based on those clues. As well as the two authorities I mentioned before, see also Kenneth Cameron's 'English Place-names', p 78 (in the 1961 edition, or p 80 in the 1996 edition), which mentions Eythrope specifically. with best wishes, Matt

The Committee for the Compounding who sequestered royalist estates during the Commonwealth deprived the lords of the manor for a certain period. They were obliged to discharge the sequestration before they could again take possession of their property. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Latin - not Old English > In message <12694399.1092211072823.JavaMail.www@wwinf3001>, John Edwin > Lindley <member@lindley-york.freeserve.co.uk> writes > >Hi > > > >Apologies - Latin, not OE but any help appreciated if possible. I'm a bit > >puzzled by the following, where the visitation seem to have uncovered a > >state of neglect. My small Latin dictionary doesn't seem to include > >medieval and Church Latin, and I'm a bit stuck on variations in meanings > >such as: > Seqyestering is taking away the cure of souls from a clergyman - mostly > this would be because of gross misconduct, as the appointment, once > made, was usually only terminable by death or voluntary resignation. > When the removal is sudden, an official called a sequestrator is > appointed until such time as the clergyman is tried and restored or > finally dismissed and a new man found. > But this is 1559, a year after Mary's Catholic clergy were being > replaced by good Protestants. > Here the clergyman (curate covered any clergyman with a 'cure' or care > of the parish) had gone, for whatever reason, voluntarily or not, and > the parish is vacant, possibly because the patron refused to appoint > someone else whose doctrines he did not like. > The care of the working of the parish, and the collection of fees and > tithes(fructus et decimas) was committed to these three men, probably > the churchwardens of most important men of the parish, who would collect > and be accountable for them when a new clergyman was appointed/ > > > > >'Super detectione exhibita per Iconomos et parochianos de Maltbye quod > >ecclesia vacata et destituta sit curato, omnes fructus et decimas eiusdem > >sequestranda fore decreverunt, sequestracionem quoque eorundem fructuum > >Joanni Persleye et Willelmo Lynley ac Joanni Sheppard, dicte ecclesie > >Iconomis, commiserunt &c.' > >Source: The Royal Visitation of 1559 (Surtees Society Vol.187 [1972]) > > > >Any help appreciated. > > > >John Lindley > >Wigginton > >NRY > > > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >

Thanks for the site, Lyn. I'll take a look at it. I'm glad you reminded me that the stallion was called the Godolphin. As you will know, this family are still important to horse racing and breeding. Am I right in saying that this horse was imported from Turkey? As for the difference between riding horses and coach horses, there were no coaches around here in the 17th century and very few carts. As I wrote previously, there weren't an awful lot of horses. I agree that most of them were probably dual purpose, riding and draft but the draft must have been more or less confined to plough-pulling. In a terrain that supported, in the main, cattle and sheep there wasn't the demand for a great deal of ploughing either. The few cases in which the horses were just for riding, it was made plain that this was their use. There were very few that had that type of animal and in each case it was a mare which, I assume, had the dual purpose of riding and breeding. Most farms were subsistence only. There weren't many animals to each farm, just enough to support the family, plus a little extra to sell to others. The odd one that was larger and had wider commercial interests stood out from the rest. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lyn Boothman" <annys@boothman27.fsnet.co.uk> To: "'norman.lee1'" <norman.lee1@virgin.net>; <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:52 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] Common vs Open > The Godolphin Arabian, one of the first, and probably the most important, of > the arabian stallions in this country died in 1753 and is buried at > Wandlebury just outside Cambridge. I put godolphin+arabian into google and > the first site on this list gives a comprehensive summary of his life and > descendants, you can find it at > http://www.tbheritage.com/Portraits/GodolphinArabian.html > > I have seen early 17th century lists/accounts with reference to riding > horses, but whether that means they were physically different from coach > horses or just that they were horses commonly used for riding, is another > matter. > > Lyn B > > >

Come here in West Country dialect Kind Regards Roy & June Cox www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Ruth Barton [mailto:mrgjb@sover.net] Sent: 11 August 2004 01:24 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] yelling cumbyer What would yelling "cumbyer" do? And what does it mean please? Ruth In the case of sheep, having a word in the ear of the bell-wether may work or yelling cumbyer! They can't reverse, of course, which means the route out will have to be in a wide circle. -- Ruth Barton mrgjb@sover.net Dummerston, VT ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== Going away for a while? Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com

Yes, I agree about the pigs but that is what I found. Poor hill farmers were perhaps not quite the same as those from the fertile plains, the flatter more profitable parts. Regarding the cavalry. I've seen pictures of these old war horses and they're certainly not the average shire type horse - not nearly so large and heavy. They seem to have been more like the cob, sturdy but not particularly tall - an average height of around 15-16 hands I would think. I shall have to get Prof Pete Edwards' book from the library to see the expert's view. Thank you for the reference, Matt. As regards horses in the 17th century around where I live, the riding horses were highly priced but then there were the nags and geldings which weren't. There could be a difference of around £10-12. Heriots. These were not always the best beast although that was the tradition. All sorts of goods were passed down as heriots and were stipulated as such in wills and inventories. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Common vs Open > In message <00b301c47eca$74b79b60$9cd1fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" > <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes > >Can anyone remember when Arab horses first came into the country? I have a > >feeling it was sometime in the 18th century. All thoroughbreds trace their > >breeding back to the first one, I think, although I may be confusing this > >with something else.? > exactly - the Byerley Arab was responsible for a lot,. So cavalry of > Rupert's time were after heavy draught horses, fully up to the job. > > > >Horses of any sort around here seem to have been on the rare side in the > >17th century. Those for riding only were very few. > Well not really - It was normal for the gentry to ride around across > country on horseback, and farmers did the same. When coaches came in, > there were sneers that only pregnant ladies and old folk should be using > them, not 'normal' men or even young women/ > > > >Someone mentioned pigs? I found that these were also for the wealthy. The > >richest man between 1650-1700 in three townships had two. > TRhat must have been a very odd community. Pigs were general around > cottages, and on farms - the numbers are conditioned by the time of > year, since in winter oink oink becomes bacon. But every manor had its > pigs, and the right to pannage to feed them. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

> What would yelling "cumbyer" do? And what does it mean please? Ruth > I would assume that 'combyer' is a dialectal pronunciation of 'come by here' - and the instruction would be given to the sheepdog rather than the sheep, whose ability to recognize instructions is, shall we say, limited ... On British TV there used to be a programme called One Man and his Dog in which shepherds and there canine companions would demonstrate their dexterity in herding sheep. A common instruction to the dog was 'Come by' IB

P.S. "Latin in Parish Records" by Alison U. Ring is quite useful. It's on the GENUKI site. John Barton

Lyn, try a search-engine. www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/RG/guide/WLLatin.asp lists several books useful for family genealogy research, including Eve's. http://www.ukans.edu/ftp/pub/history/latwords.html gives some 8000 general Latin terms. A search of Google with something like Latin word list (then refined by e.g. 'research') gives more. What you want is probably there. Even - Latin word lists history research documents medieval - with no connections- gives 46,000 hits. Adding local family official brings it down to 19,000. And parish records to 15,000. The amount of info. on all aspects of research staggers me. John Barton