By makas_nc |

a non member of the group sent this message in and I would like to send
him any comments the group might offer:

Joseph,
I'm noticing that as I dig into the 1800s that names like perez, cruz,
gonzalez are appearing as peres, crus, gonzales.
I'm actually per the Mexican 1930s Census a Peres, not a Perez. Have
you encountered this? Any light to shed? Is there a sephardic or
portuguese connection?
Thanks!
Joel

==============

joseph

======================

Joseph Puentes
NoMeat@h2opodcast.com
http://h2opodcast.com/vsse.html (Vegan Environmental Solutions Podcast)
http://h2opodcast.com (Environmental Podcast)
http://h2opodcast.blogspot.com (Blog for above)
http://PleaseListenToYourMom.com (Women's Peace Podcast)
http://NuestraFamiliaUnida.com (Latin American History Podcast)
http://nuestrosranchos.org (Jalisco, Zacatecas, and Aguascalientes
Genealogy)

longsjourney

14 years 4 months ago

Permalink

I think the scribe made the choice, I have cousins who are siblings, one who's
parents went by the census Rebeles and the rest of the family is Reveles. I
would appear most of our ancestors never saw the records and many could not read
or write so had no idea of the changes from C to Z and S to Z and visa versa
through the years.  I also see the changes in the name Morillo/Murillo, many of
these records especially as witness say they cannot sign because they cannot
read or write.

just my opinion,
Linda in Boulder City

________________________________
From: Joseph Puentes
To: general@nuestrosranchos.org
Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 4:38:10 AM
Subject: [Nuestros Ranchos] Perez v. Peres: "z" v. "s"

a non member of the group sent this message in and I would like to send him any
comments the group might offer:

Joseph,
I'm noticing that as I dig into the 1800s that names like perez, cruz, gonzalez
are appearing as peres, crus, gonzales.
I'm actually per the Mexican 1930s Census a Peres, not a Perez.  Have you
encountered this? Any light to shed? Is there a sephardic or portuguese
connection?
Thanks!
Joel

==============

joseph

======================

Joseph Puentes
NoMeat@h2opodcast.com
http://h2opodcast.com/vsse.html (Vegan Environmental Solutions Podcast)
http://h2opodcast.com (Environmental Podcast)
http://h2opodcast.blogspot.com (Blog for above)
http://PleaseListenToYourMom.com (Women's Peace Podcast)
http://NuestraFamiliaUnida.com (Latin American History Podcast)
http://nuestrosranchos.org (Jalisco, Zacatecas, and Aguascalientes Genealogy)

One of the axioms of genealogy is: Spelling doesn't count!

I would not take today's rules and norms of spelling and apply them to documents of 200 years ago.

As books became more widely available, as well as dictionaries, spelling became more standardized. The first English dictionary is Robert Cawdrey's work of 1604. This was most likely not widely available, and certainly not used by the common people. There are many words in this dictionary that we would consider misspelled today. Usage varied significantly from what we do today. For example, U was not used at the beginnings of words, instead V.

The first Spanish dictionary was published in 1611 by Sebastian de Covarrubias. Other authoritative publications came from the Real Academia Espanola (founded in the early 1700) in the 1740s and later.

Getting back to names, I have seen the same name spelled two different ways in the same document, and obviously written by the same person.

George Fulton
Pleasanton, CA

Hello Joseph and George,

Since this is dealing more with orthography than definitions, for which a
dictionary would be used, the first book of Spanish orthography was written
by Antonio de Nebrija in 1517. He also wrote *Gramatica Castellana* in 1492
which includes a chapter on the letters and pronunciations in Spanish and
another on the general rules of orthography of Spanish. The full text
of *Gramatica
Castellana* can be found at http://www.antoniodenebrija.org/indice.html

Even so Spanish wasn't widely standardized until fairly recently and
mispellings continue to this day, especially for surnames. We still use
Valadez while the correct spelling is Valadés and Rubalcava when the
accepted spelling in Spain is Robalcaba. Also many of the surnames that
should end in -ez, not just Pérez, were spelled ambiguously with -es in the
past. This also happened in Spain as I learned when researching my ancestors
there. The z/s aren't the only letters that were used ambiguously. The
letters b/v and y/i are others. Such as lavor for labor and yndio for indio.

I agree with what everyone else is saying that the spelling is meaningless
for the reasons cited as well as a few others. One is that Pérez is also
cited as being of Spanish origin, apart from the widely mentioned Sephardic
origin, meaning son of Pero or Pedro. Most surnames that end with -ez mean
"son of" such as Alvarez = son of Alvaro, González = son of Gonzalo, Sánchez
= son of Sancho, etc. More info on Spanish patronimic surnames can be found
at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patron%C3%ADmico Another is that a surname,
regardless of spelling, doesn't necessarily indicate ancestry.

Saludos,
Armando

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 12:08 PM, wrote:

> One of the axioms of genealogy is: Spelling doesn't count!
>
> I would not take today's rules and norms of spelling and apply them to
> documents of 200 years ago.
>
> As books became more widely available, as well as dictionaries, spelling
> became more standardized. The first English dictionary is Robert Cawdrey's
> work of 1604. This was most likely not widely available, and certainly not
> used by the common people. There are many words in this dictionary that we
> would consider misspelled today. Usage varied significantly from what we do
> today. For example, U was not used at the beginnings of words, instead V.
>
> The first Spanish dictionary was published in 1611 by Sebastian de
> Covarrubias. Other authoritative publications came from the Real Academia
> Espanola (founded in the early 1700) in the 1740s and later.
>
> Getting back to names, I have seen the same name spelled two different ways
> in the same document, and obviously written by the same person.
>
> George Fulton
> Pleasanton, CA

Hi Armando,

This is an interesting dicussion. The history of the language is a very complex one
until the XVIII century what I consider the beginning of the modern language though
it would not be till the XIX century when things became standardized.

Also about the Sephardic connection with Perez, I don't think any can say this name is
Sephardic. Sephardic is about the ancestry not just the surname.

Daniel Méndez Camino

R.A.Ricci (not verified)

14 years 4 months ago

Permalink

In genealogy, Perez has long been considered a jewish surname.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Méndez Camino
Sender: general-bounces@lists.nuestrosranchos.orgDate: Sun, 1 May 2011 18:03:32
To: Nuestros Ranchos
Reply-To: general@nuestrosranchos.org
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Spelling

Hi Armando,

This is an interesting dicussion. The history of the language is a very complex one
until the XVIII century what I consider the beginning of the modern language though
it would not be till the XIX century when things became standardized.

Also about the Sephardic connection with Perez, I don't think any can say this name is
Sephardic. Sephardic is about the ancestry not just the surname.

Daniel Méndez Camino

Armando

Thanks for this link. Your information significantly pre-dates what I found.

The point I was trying to make (and didn't do it too well), is that the availability of printed materials did much to standardize language, both from the standpoints of grammar and spelling.

One of the other points made by some of the sources I looked at is that in some areas different letters or combinations of letters may represent the same sound. Hence, the letters are used interchangeably.

Evolution of a language is a fascinating study.

George Fulton
Pleasanton, CA

Hi Joseph,

Like my cousin Linda, I believe the priest made the choices. I would think priest would
have gone through grammer school but again with all the changes to Castilian over
the centuries. The Portuguese form is Pires a bit different. MOst people did not
see the church records only those who would try to "get into something"; court,
job, college or notary records. There are many documents that when we are lucky
we can see their signature.

Daniel Méndez Camino

My experience is that a different spelling of a name, by itself, has no significance in identifying a family or individual.

Over twenty years doing genealogy research has made it clear to me that until the early twentieth century, there was almost no "standard" spelling. I have encountered many spelling variations for even simple names, sometimes within the same record for the same person. Lack of education, "phonetic" spelling, miscopying poor or nearly illegible handwriting, and just plain errors all contribute to the diversity of spelling.

In Jalisco records, I've found my surname not only as PAREDES but also as PAREDEZ, PREDES, PADERES, and PADEREZ, plus other variations I may have forgotten. The name got mangled as much or more in Texas records: my GGF's 1899 marriage record lists him as Juan PADUEZ. PAREDES was even misspelled on my high school diploma. Even today, misteaks happpen.

~ Bert Paredes

@}-->----- @}-->----- {@} -----<--{@ -----<--{@
I admire a man who can spell a word more than one way.
- Mark Twain

History, Culture and General Discussion