I have found confirmation for the translation of the forename "Johe". I found it on Rootsweb and Ancestry.com. The old form of John (Latin) is Ioh (That is an "i" as in India). The "I" is equal to a "J". The Latin for John is then "Joh" and eventually changed to "Johe" and finally "John". I see it all the way through the Sussex subsidy lists from 1296 to 1332. Thanks for everyone's input. Donna TILLINGHAST Casey Michigan, USA 9674 If you want to understand today, you have to search yesterday. Pearl Buck

Hi The full Latin from of John is Johannes, whixh gives rise to the abbreviation Johe. Kathleen Donna Casey <donnacasey@yahoo.com> wrote: I have found confirmation for the translation of the forename "Johe". I found it on Rootsweb and Ancestry.com. The old form of John (Latin) is Ioh (That is an "i" as in India). The "I" is equal to a "J". The Latin for John is then "Joh" and eventually changed to "Johe" and finally "John". I see it all the way through the Sussex subsidy lists from 1296 to 1332. Thanks for everyone's input. Donna TILLINGHAST Casey Michigan, USA 9674 If you want to understand today, you have to search yesterday. Pearl Buck ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

That's almost right, but not quite. The Latin for John is Johannes. As there is no "J" in the Classical Latin alphabet, the name is often seen written as Iohannes; and this is abbreviated in some early documents to Ioh. Best wishes Marion Woolgar Bognor Regis, West Sussex SFHG NO: 3323

Hi Perhaps it would be easier to spell it out in full (no pun intended). The Latin in ecclesiastical documents is by definition not classical Latin, and at the beginnings of many words, including many names, the first letter could appear quite happily and by no means consistently as either I or J. When referring to names I tend to favour J as it is easier to associate with the modern names which have developed from them, such as John from the Greek name which would be transliterated as Ioannis, there being no J in Greek either. It would be inconsistent with general modern practice to refer to Iulius Caesar. I don't think the original query was about the I/J question so didn't feel it necessary to explain it. Kathleen Marion Woolgar <listmail2008@btinternet.com> wrote: That's almost right, but not quite. The Latin for John is Johannes. As there is no "J" in the Classical Latin alphabet, the name is often seen written as Iohannes; and this is abbreviated in some early documents to Ioh. Best wishes Marion Woolgar Bognor Regis, West Sussex SFHG NO: 3323 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.