English and Scottish surnames of French origin

GRACE : world 'grace' passed into Eglish, but the surname has surely been introduced by "Normands" from France
+ a placename Grâce-Uzel (near Uzel) in Côtes-d'Arvor N-Brittany as a possibility
GUMMERY : alteration of MONTGOMERY, clan name of Scotland of Normand origin
HAMELL / HAMILL : in Scotland - 1- Normand from Haineville / Henneville (Manche Norm.)
2- gaelic O-hAdhmaill + 3- possibly and simply French surname Hamel (+Duhamel : 'hameau', common in NW
France of Germanic origin like 'ham' ('hem', 'heim'...> little dwelling place > 'home')
 
off topic,
Is PIE a famer's language?

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Tutut

Why IE share good amount of agricultural vocabulary but not about horses and riding?

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Tutut

I see no correlation between steppe ancestry and IE languages. German and Celtic have big amount of no IE vocabulary, they were simply IEsed very late if we take into account the etruscans.
--
Linguists believe that the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE), from which all Indo-European languages descended, was spoken around 4000-2500 BC, but it is NOT directly attested in any written sources. Therefore, the exact nature and characteristics of PIE remain a subject of ongoing research and scholarly debate.
And more from Colin Renfrew:
"One important question is the extent to which it is legitimate to reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European language, drawing upon the cognate forms of the words in the various Indo-European languages that are known. Certainly it is questionable whether the nouns (for linguistic palaeontologists make little use of verbs or adjectives) can legitimately be used in the way advocated by Pictet and by Schrader to create an inventory, as it were, of the Urheimat, the original homeland of these Proto-Indo-Europeans."
That is, the words presented for PIE are a huge speculation. The only proven source is Sanskrit for an old IE language base.

You can't give me the English word for horse and tell me it's PIE. This is absurd.

"connected to PIE root *kers- "to run," "What? What is the original source for this fictional root? There’s none of course, as stated above.

In Sanskrit it is *carati चरति and not the invented by someone kers* and does not mean run, but Go, walk, move.
There is no cognate with this verb in English, it is a clear loanword in English. Words corresponding to IE karam in English are run, walk, move, go. There is no verb karam-karate, but this verb exists in Slavic languages.
Is there a word for horse like the English "horse" in any other IE language? Why are you even giving me English as an example then?

In absolutely all IE languages, this word is different.

"For the Romanic words (French cheval, Spanish caballo) see cavalier (n.); for Dutch paard, German Pferd, see palfrey; for Swedish häst, Danish hest see henchman."

Your quote shows it, and it doesn't even list languages like Slavic, Latvian, Lithuanian, Greek, Albanian, Armenian, ... Let's add to your list - kon, zirgs, arklys, kalë, άλογο, dzi... all words for
a horse

Again we came to the same question: why is there no unified terminology for horse and riding in IE.
 
HIBBOTT : supposed descendant of a Norman named Hildebert (Germanic Hild-Berht) – linked
by someones to a Hygbert, bishop of Lichfield, but Hygbert evoks rather a Hug(o)-Berht !
HEWETT / HEWITT : French (surely with Normans) western surname Huet < Huguet < Hugues
(official form) = surname Hue (Germanic Hugo)
HEWLETT / HULETT / HOWLETT : Norman name, appeared as Hughelot (1248), Huwelot (1250),
Hulot (1275), Houlet later, from French *Huguelot, *Huguelet < Hugues > Germanic Hugo
HUMPHREYS / HUMPHRIES : supposed from O.Fr name Humfroy, Hunfrey < Germanic Hun-
Frid ; todate only surnames Onfroy, Onfrey are found in NW France ; same origin ? (- H?)
HUSSEY : 1- norman nickname for a « gaitered person » cf Normandy surname Heuzé < Latin
‘hosatus’ – 2- from MidEnglish ‘husewyf’ (house+wife) – 3- < Gaelic O hEodhusa -
 
@Johen
Offtopic answer to an offtopic question
Just to begin with:(some phonetical signs have been replaced) but the reasonings and comparisons are interesting
some serious questions about the supposed PIE word for horse:
The significance of the horse as an icon in the culture and myth of the Indo-Europeans has
long been recognised.1 The early written records concerning the horse are abundantly substan-
tiated by archaeological finds. In the last few decades in particular the horse has gained an im-
portance in scholarship following the publication of archaeological research suggesting that the
horse was probably domesticated earlier than previously thought and that the Indo-Europeans
may have been riders (Anthony 2007: 194–220; Mallory and Adams 1997: 276; Nobis 1971). The
horse, as an emblem of speed, may have been the vehicle by which the Indo-European lan-
guage disseminated, facilitating its break-up into the respective dialects (Anthony 2007: 26).
Given that the horse was so embedded in the culture of the earliest Indo-Europeans, it is
surprising that hipponyms have attracted so little linguistic commentary.2 The majority of the
literature on the subject can be divided into purely etymological accounts, and treatments
which aim to explain in cultural-historical terms the role the horse played in Indo-European
society. The purpose of this article is to further the discussion on the problematic etymology of
*h1ékwo- and to tease apart the semantic distinctions between the different etyma for horse by
using the sociolinguistic notion of register.
2. Overview of the proto-lexicon: the PIE horse
Benveniste’s semantic reconstruction of *péku first as ‘movable wealth,’ ‘personal chattels’ then
‘livestock and not the chronological reverse was a significant reinterpretation: deriving the
1 The research was supported by the British Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). I am very
grateful for all the help and support I have received from Prof. Andreas Willi who has taken great care to read the
article and ensure all my references and etymologies are correct and up-to-date. I appreciated very much all the
feedback from the Indo-European philology seminar in Oxford where an earlier draft of this material was
presented. The usual disclaimer applies regarding any outstanding errors.
2 I use the term hipponym to denote kinds of horses as well as proper names. I realise my use of the word
may be irregular: anthroponyms tend to refer to personal names and hydronyms names for rivers. Other uses of
‘-onym’ suggest this need not be the case, however, and there is a degree of terminological inconsistency.



Stephen Pax Leonard
2
word for ‘livestock’ from movable wealth’ and distinguishing between *wihrós (Mallory and
Adams 2006: 544) or *wī-ro- ‘man’ (Watkins 2000: 101) and *ku underpinned the pre-eminence
of Indo-European nomadic pastoralism (Benveniste 1973: 40–51). It is perhaps no coincidence
that the clear significance of livestock as ‘movable wealth’ correlates with generally strong
etymological evidence for the word-field implicative of PIE stockbreeding: a number of the key
etyma survive as semantically unshifted cognate reflexes into the historically attested daughter
languages of Indo-European. This is clearly evidenced in *gʷōus ‘cow’ (Gmc. *kōuz, OE cū, Lat. bōs
also represented in Slav. *govędo ‘head of cattle’); *k(u)wōn- ‘dog’ (Goth. hunds, OIce. hundr,
Lat. canis) and *sū-s ‘pig’ (Eng. swine, Lat. sus, Skt. su-) (Mallory and Adams 2006: 530; 532; 549).
Paradoxically, this is not the case with *h1ékwo- ‘horse’ where the well-attested form
has undergone considerable diatopic variation, leading to a displacement in just about every
modern European language (only the fem. Sp. yegua, Rom. iapă ‘mare’ and Sc. G. ech ‘horse’
remain) (Wodtko et al. 2008: 231–3).3 This displacement has left considerable internal diversity
within specific sub-groups of Indo-European as in the case of Germanic (Eng. horse, NHG
Pferd, Sw. häst), which is particularly perplexing as it concerns a relatively small geographi-
cal area.
The absence of relics marking the lexical opposition between the wild and domestic horse
has, however, a number of ethno-historical repercussions for PIE homeland theories since the
horse is employed as a major marker of the Indo-Europeans.4 Gamkrelidze-Ivanov (1995: 464)
and Buck (1949: 167) claim that we can be reasonably sure that the horse was at least partially
domesticated by the Indo-European period based on the very wide attestation of the *h1ékwo-
form. Cited as additional evidence is the fact that it figures prominently in the personal names
of the earliest Indo-Europeans: Skt. Aśva-cakra, OPers. Vist-aspa, Gr. Hípp-arkhos and Phil-ippos,
Gaul. Epo-pennus and OE Eomaer (Mallory 1989: 119). To be added to these European
reliktwörter from *h 1ékwo- should be Lithuanian ašva 'mare' and ašvienis' ‘workhorse’; Venetic
ekvon ‘horse’ and Old Cornish ebol ‘foul’ (Wodtko et al. 2008: 230–31). It is interesting to note
that the words for 'mare' seem more resistant to replacement than those for 'stallion' or 'horse’.
Moreover, the word is also extended to deities such as the divine twins of Indic religion, the
Aśvin (Skt. áśva) (Wodtko et al. 2008: 230–31) and the Gaulish goddess Epona (Gaul. epos) (Del-
marre 2003: 163–164). We are unable to infer, however, from the proto-form *h1ékwo- alone any-
thing about horse-domestication. We can be sure that the horse was definitely known to the
Indo-European people before the language split into its respective dialects, i.e. before c. 3000 B.C.
but any observations beyond this are likely to be speculative. The attestation does not imply
that horses were domesticated, let alone possessed, ridden or used for food or in any other
way. We would have to rely on archaeological data for that.
2.1. The *h 1 ékwo- etymon
The etymology of *h1ékwo- (Wodtko et al. 2008: 230) is a persistent problem and has incited a
considerable amount of debate amongst scholars. The philological issues pertaining to this
particular proto-form is well endowed with descriptive and exegetic matter and I will not at-
3 One might also posit *h 1ékwos (Mallory and Adams 2006: 50). The Anatolian evidence makes it quite clear
that *h 1éwos is a post-Anatolian innovation and that Proto-Anatolian (and PIE also) had *h 1 eku-, and *h 1 ékwos was
a thematicization thereof.
4 For almost a hundred years, almost every region between western Europe and the Hindu-Kush, Central
Asia, and the Levant has been claimed as the PIE homeland. See Anthony & Brown (2011: 131–160); Mallory and
Adams (2006: 443–460); Anthony (2007).



Hipponyms in Indo-European: using register to disentangle the etyma
3
tempt to summarize the entire history of the research since there is a degree of agreement re-
garding the derivation. The nature of the etymological problem is as follows: the form *h1ékwo-
is often cited as a base word (Pokorny 1959: 301–302) and yet the form must be derived from
some other underlying root; the etymology is obscure and no verbal root has thus far been
posited. *h 1éo- is generally derived from the lengthened o grade adjective *ōku- ‘swift’ or ‘the
swift one’ (Watkins 2000: 23) giving us Gr. κύs ‘swift’, Lat. ocius ‘swifter’ (Ernout and Meillet
1979: 457); Lat. acupedius (Ernout and Meillet 1979: 7) ‘swift-footed’. Wodtko et al. (2008: 230)
posit *HeHk (‘quick’), possibly a derivative of the lost u-stem *h1 óék-u- (‘speed’). Anatolian
shows the u-stem of the horse-word directly, the morphological “difficulty” is plain thematiza-
tion. Anatolian seems to directly attest to a u-stem *(h1 )ek’u- ‘horse’, so it is likely this had been
the original form while core Indo-European was renewed by thematization (see above all
Kloekhorst 2008: 239; 224 on Ved. āśu- < *h1 o-h1k ‘-u-)
 
It was by Stephen Pax Leonard of Moscow State Linguistic University
 
other speculations about horse

2. The Proto-Indo-European word for ‘horse’.
Reconstructable form: PIE *éḱwos (masc.).
Analysis: apparently unanalyzable.
Development of attested forms in the daughter languages:
*éḱwos > Proto-Anatolian *áḱḱwos (Melchert 1994:62-3, 74-5) > Proto-Luvian *áttswos (Melchert 1987, 1994:251-2);
> Cuneiform Luvian azzuwas, Hieroglyphic Luvian á-zú-wa-;
> *asbe > Lycian esbe (Melchert 1994:302, 310-1).
*éḱwos > *ékwë (Ringe 1996, as above) > Proto-Tocharian *yə́kwë (pace Kim
1999:158, 163, 167);
> *yəkw > *yŭk > Tocharian A yuk;
> Tocharian B yakwe.
*éḱwos > Proto-Indo-Iranian *áćwas;
> Vedic áśvas;
> Proto-Iranian *atswah > Avestan aspō, Old Persian asa.
*éḱwos >→ Greek *íkwkwos (cf. Mycenaean i-qo; but why *i-?? contamination with some other word?) > *íppos (cf. compound names like Ἄλκιππος /Álk-ippos/, with no aspiration) → ἵππος /híppos/ (again, where does the /h-/ come from?); problematic cognate.
*éḱwos > Proto-Italic *ékwos > Latin equos.
*éḱwos > Proto-Celtic *ekwos > Gaulish Epo- (in names), Old Irish ech.
*éḱwos > Proto-Germanic *ehwaz > Old Norse jór, Old English eoh; cf. also Old Saxon ehuskalk ‘mounted retainer’, Gothic aíƕatundi ‘thornbush’ (*‘horse-tooth’).
*éḱwos > Proto-Balto-Slavic *éšwas; derived fem. *ešwā́ > Lithuanian ašvà ‘mare’.
*éḱwos > *eš > Armenian êš ‘donkey’.
Discussion. The consonant cluster *ḱw is rare, and we might have hoped that it would develop in some unusual way in many first-order daughters. But once again the daughters in which it underwent changes that should make loanwords detectable diverged from the rest of the family fairly late (to judge from the trees in Nakhleh et al. 2005). In Tocharian and Italo-Celtic it merely underwent the merger of palatals and velars (followed, in Celtic, by a merger with the voiceless labiovelar). The initial vowel, too, survived without change for a long time in most daughters.
But the Anatolian reflex is very distinctive, because of a bizarre sound change that replaced word-initial accented *é plus a single consonant (followed by a vowel or semi­vowel) with accented *á plus a geminate consonant (“limited Čop’s Law”; see Melchert 1994, as above). That sound change can be shown to have occurred after another Anatolian sound change (loss of word-initial *h[SUB]1[/SUB]) but before a third (loss of word-initial *y when followed by an e-vowel), so it was neither among the first nor among the last pre-PA changes (Melchert 1994:90). We should be able to argue that after the limited Čop’s Law change an undetectable borrowing of ‘horse’ into or out of Anatolian would have been impossible.
Unfortunately there is a further complication that undermines any such argument. If we could adduce a Hittite cognate “akkuwas”, the argument would be ironclad. But though horses are often referred to in Hittite documents, the scribes never spell the word out (!); instead they use a logogram (word-sign), one of many adopted as part of the cunei­form writing system, which is usually transliterated with the Sumerian phrase ANŠE.KUR.RA ‘donkey of the mountains’. All the actually attested Anatolian words for ‘horse’ are from languages of the Luvian subgroup; and in that subgroup the initial vow­els of all the relevant words are etymologically ambiguous! Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luvian a- could in principle reflect Proto-Luvian and Proto-Anatolian *a-, *e-, or *o- (Melchert 1994:262-4). In Lycian the situation is even stranger. First Proto-Anatolian *e and *o merged as e, while *a remained distinct as a. But then an umlaut rule operated, changing the frontness of vowels to agree with the frontness of the vowel in the next syllable, and the rule iterated from right to left through the word (Melchert 1994:310-1, 328). As a result, Lycian esbe could reflect earlier *asbe (with PAnat. *a-) or earlier *esbe (with PAnat. *e- or *o-). So it turns out that the Proto-Luvian form could actually have been either *áttswos or *éttswos; and since we have no other direct evidence for the Proto-Anatolian form, that could have been either *áḱḱwos or *éḱḱwos—the former if it was inherited from PIE according to the hypothesis sketched above, the latter if it was borrowed from some other IE language after the limited Čop’s Law change had run its course! But what about the geminate stop, which is clearly preserved in Cuneiform Luvian? It turns out that there was yet another Anatolian sound change which geminated voiceless stops, and we don’t know when it occurred—it need not have been early (Melchert 1994:62); so borrowing of *éḱwos from another IE language, followed by gemination of the stop in the Anatolian languages, is not impossible. Once again the linguistic evidence has left us in the lurch.
And once again cladistics and archaeology come to our rescue. The presence of this word for ‘horse’ in Tocharian guarantees its existence in the non-Anatolian half of the family by 3500 BCE for the reasons advanced above in the discussion of ‘wheel’. The abrupt separation of Tocharian and the fact that that event can (probably) be traced archaeologically are crucial. Unfortunately the archaeological situation for Anatolian is very different. Anthony’s suggestion that an expansion of the steppe culture into the Danube delta around 4200 BCE reflects the incipient separation of Anatolian from the rest of PIE (Anthony 2007:249-57) is reasonable, but any connection with Anatolia seems to rest on speculation (ibid. p. 262). Working backwards from the historical record, we know that speakers of Anatolian languages were in central Anatolia by the 19th century BCE; when and by what route they arrived there remain very unclear, though a cultural disruption in the 27th century BCE is apparently a likely candidate for an Anatolian incursion into the area (Mallory 1989:24-9). That still seems to leave many centuries for potential contact between Anatolian and other IE languages.
But the distribution of linguistic innovations tells a different story. Like Tocharian, Anatolian shares no distinctive innovations with any other subfamily of IE (cf. Melchert 1994:60-91, Ringe 2000); so far as we can tell, its separation from the rest of the family was reasonably “clean”. Moreover, the cladistic tree tells us that that separation must have been earlier than that of Tocharian. This reduces the viable options to two: either the well-known word for ‘horse’ was inherited by Proto-Anatolian, according to the scenario sketched above, or else it was borrowed into or out of pre-PA during the relatively short time when pre-PA was still in contact with related languages—and that time must have been some centuries before 3500 BCE, and few detecta­ble innovations can yet have occurred in pre-PA.
This raises a methodological point that we can no longer avoid. Is there any difference between a word which is reconstructable for a protolanguage and a word which spread from dialect to dialect of the protolanguage as it was breaking up? As usual, it depends on the individual case. If the real-world separation of the daughters was genuinely abrupt—that is, one group picked up and moved within a generation or so, and subsequent contacts were infrequent and brief—then there is a clear difference between the two scenarios. But most disintegrations of speech communities don’t happen like that; dialects remain in contact as they diverge, continuing to trade linguistic material until some event finally makes them lose touch altogether. (The best discussion of these processes is Ross 1997.) In such cases the “protolanguage” which we reconstruct is most unlikely to correspond to a single, completely uniform dialect that existed in the real world before its speaking population became large enough to exhibit significant linguistic diversity; it almost inevitably corresponds to a dialectally diversified speech community, still unified but no longer uniform, simply because we can’t tell the difference between words and grammatical forms which had been in the language for generations and those which had arrived very recently. It is also likely that our reconstruction will be temporally “out of focus”, including some inherited words and forms which were no longer characteristic of all the dialects and some new words and forms which were still spread­ing from dialect to dialect. There are good reasons to suspect that our reconstruction of PIE is like that.
But once again this doesn’t make much difference for our reconstructions of palaeocultures. Whether the reconstructable PIE word for ‘horse’ was already in the common ancestor of all the IE languages in, say, 4200 BCE or spread through a rapidly diversifying IE dialect continuum around 3700 BCE can’t be expected to have any impact on subsequent prehistoric and historical developments. In this case, at least, a degree of detail too fine for linguists to recover is also too fine to have any consequences for history.
 
off topic,
Is PIE a famer's language?

The reconstructed forms for PIE are sometimes not completely reliable; nevertheless, the common origin of the cognates found in diverse modern and ancient "IE" languages points seriously to some common origin.
Renfrew was an archeologist more than a linguist or than a geneticist. Demoule like him made the same error: to think that a breeding people had only a few words to name diverse specimen of a same race. There were surely more than a PIE word for horse according to their sex, age and diverse utilities (bare, fruitful females…, races, riding or agrary work...). The same in todate languages, not only for horses, but for the domestic animals (not by force the pet ones).
sometimes languages imagine or use new words linked to fonctions in place of race origin: French "monture", "dextrier" for "cheval" horse -
among diverse cognate languages, by time, the precise meanings of these words can be exchanged between themselves, as it occurs almost always among dialects of the same language; some terms are lost or took a too evolved meanig, other created to take their place.
"horse" as its cognates "ros" (netherlands, < *hros) reflects a previous *kors and I see NO oppositon to compare it with the Sanskrit *carati nor I see impossibility to lonk the meanings of run, walk, move - in Slavic languages a same root is used to form the words for cart, car and way by instance, this to show how a word and its derived forms can took a lot of meanings by progressive evolution ; that said, horse was illustrated by *ec > eachin Gaelic, epos in Gaulishand vaḥ in Sanskrit, and their community of origin is hard to deny, I think. But in Sanskrit as in every language of horses culture, this animal had/has more than a name ! And we have to remember a lot of ancient (common) words has been lost in most than an modern language, which were present in former periods.
 
PERCY / PIERCY : from a Norman from Percy-en-Normandie, Manche, went along with William the Bastard in 1066; a William De Perci
acquired lands in Yorkshire and Lincoln, among others. The version from "perce-haie" seems a bit fancyfull!
PERRINS : from Old French Perrin, diminutive of Pierre, Peter; the precise date of apparition in England is not known; formed on Per-,
a lot of forms appeared in England, Perun, Perrun, Piran, Piron (the diminutive Perron, Péron is common enough in Brittany and
in whole France).
PIGGOTT : "Picot was a personal name, [...] for Picot, a chief tenant in Hampshire, and Picot de Grentebrig', both occur in Domesday
[Book]. It is curious, too, to observe that two families in Cheshire, the Pigots and Pichots, ran side by side for some
generations, and Dr. Ormerod long ago surmised that both sprang from one common ancestor - Gilbert Pichot, Lord of
Broxton." . I add PICOT and PICHOT are surnames still born by N-W French people (PICOT more spred). Explanations by
anglo-saxon seem unbased.
PILGRIM : supposed come with Normans (surname Pelerin appeared 3 times in Normandy between 1180 and 1195. Old FRench
'pellegrin' (still an Occitan form); I doubt Pilgrim could be from these people, rather an adopted Latin term of vocabulary.
PINNELL : from diverse Norman people having lands in England under the name Pinel; the surname is common in whole France
based on the name of the pine tree.
PLANT: appeared un der the forms PLANT/PLANTE, and descendants of Fulk, count of Anjou, W-France.
PLUNKETT : placename (possession?) in Ireland but considered as from the placename Planquenet (?) in Ille-et-Villaine, E-Brittany;
the surname appeared as Plouquenet, Plugenet (England), Plunkett (Ireland). But I know NO Planquenet or Plouquenet
placename in Brittany, only a placename Plouguenast in Côtes-d'Armor, West of Ille-et-Villaine.
 
PLUMMER : considered as an Anglo-Saxon name , but the linguistic origin seems French (< < ‘plume’ cf French surname Plumier : feather - or ‘plumber’ < > ‘plombier’ : lead pipes maker) spite an English one (plum of plum tree) is also possible – so a Norman origin is not excluded, in absence of ancient traces -


POCKETT : House of names says : The surname Pockett was first found in Lincolnshire where John Poucher was listed in the Modern Domesday Book. [1] While this is the first listing of the name in England, we must look further back to Brittany to find another origin of the name. For it is there that Poher was an ancient principality in the Early Middle Ages in Cornouaille in west-central Brittany. Judicael (died c. 888) held the title "princeps Poucher," controller of Poher. The aforementioned Bardsley reference claims that the name was an occupational name as in "the poucher, a maker of pouches, pokes or bags." - I doubt greatly about the explanation by the Poher of Brittany : ‘Poucher’ in Breton was pronounced approximatively /p[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]ɔwɣɛr/ [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]and the big variety of spellings of the time shows that oral was dominant over writing, so Pou(c)her or Poher would hardly have given Pocker, even less Pockett, IMO – [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]in France we have the surnames [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Pochet / Poquet[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] surely linked to the meaning of [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]pocket, [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]word of French origin in English -[/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]P[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]OLLITT : House of names says : [/FONT]
The name Pollitt was brought to England by the Normans when they conquered the country in 1066. The ancestors of the Pollitt family lived in Pawlett, a small village 4 miles (6 km) north of Bridgwater, in the Sedgemoor district of the English county of Somerset. The Pollitt family claim descent from Hercules de Tournon but "he appears to be a mythic personage." [1] This reference continues: "it is really descended from the Norman house of D'Aunou. Baldric Teutonicus, living c. 900 was ancestor [of this family]. […] The surname Pollitt was first found in Somerset, at Pawlett (Paulet.) It was here that "in the reign of Henry I, Fulco de Alnou had a grant from the Crown of Grandon. He had two sons: 1. Walter de Poeleth, who in 1203 paid a fine in Somerset [and] 2. Robert de Polet, mentioned in Buckinghamshire 1198.
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] If [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Pollitt[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] is an evolved form of the diverse [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Polet, [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Paulet, Pawlett, De Poeleth[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif], it evoks the Pow-Aled subregion near Saint-Malo, Northeastern Britanny, around Alet, Alan’[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] (ancestor of Stuart [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]lineage[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]) place of origin ; [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]but it doesn’t seem backed by the supposed ancestor Baldric Teutonicus - [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] [/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]_________________________________________________________________________________[/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]à éditer[/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]POMMEROY : [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]The name [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Pomeroy[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] was brought to England in the great wave of migration following the Norman Conquest of 1066. The Pomeroy family lived in Devon. Their name, however, is a reference to [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]La Pommeroie,[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] Normandy, the family's place of residence prior to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. The name of this place translates as from the French as [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]apple orchard.[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]The family was the "Castellans of La Pommeraie, Normandy (De Gerville, Anciens Châteaux de la Manche). 'A fragment of this Norman stronghold still remains in the Cinglais, not far from Falaise. [/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]PORRETT / PORRITT : [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Porrett[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] is one of the many names that the Normans brought with them when they conquered England in 1066. The name Porrett came from the name Peter. This name was a[/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]baptismal name that was originally derived from the French name Pierre and was a diminutive of the name [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Parrot,[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] which means [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]little Peter. [/FONT]Interestingly, the English word "parrot," for the talking bird, was not in use until the 16th century, much later than this word's use as a surname.
Another source claims the name was originally "De Perrott from Castel Perrott, which he built in Armorica (Brittany), and the town of Perrott, one league from it. He came over to England in 957, and obtained some lands in Wessex, on a river which changed its name to the Perrot (now corrupted to the Parret), in Somersetshire." Remotely, both came from the same diminutive name.[
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]PORTER : The surname Porter was first found in Hampshire, where Hugh de Port was listed in the Domesday Book as a major land holder. "Soon after the Conquest, Bicton Manor [Sidmouth, Devonshire] was granted to one of the Norman followers of William a certain William the Porter, whose duty it was to keep the door of the gaol, and who held Bicton by this service. This tenure continued for some 700 years, down to the year 1787; and the early owners of the manor-house at different periods took the names Portitor, De Porta, De la Porte, and Janitor." - form of the French ‘portier’ = [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]doorman, doorkeeper [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]-[/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]POTTER : form of French ‘potier’, at those times [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]pots maker [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]or[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] drogist – [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]came after the Norman conquest - [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]The surname Potter was first found in various shires and counties throughout Britain. Search for the earliest record of the name revealed Seuard le potter who was listed in 1172 in Lincolnshire. A few years later, Geoffrey Poter was listed in the Curia Regis Rolls of Essex in 1196 and John le Potier was listed in the Pipe Rolls of Essex in 1197. Lambert le Pottur was listed in the Curia Regis Rolls of Essex in 1214.[/FONT]
 
I read newly that the surname(S) Beaver, Beavor, Beever, Beevor is of Norman origin, corresponding to different placenames in Normandy (and elsewhere in N-W France): Beauvoir (< Belveder) sometimes evolved into Beauvais* in France, subdialectal form. This is without any doubt. But the name was also present in Wales where it was of Welsh origin, from (m)Ab Ifor /'b-ivor/, Ivor's son.

* Beauvais is found in N-W France as the name of more than a little place or hamlet: from beau+vei(r) = beau-voir. But the middle size town of Beauvais in the departement of Oise come frome the Belgae tribe the Bellovaci.
 
The reconstructed forms for PIE are sometimes not completely reliable; nevertheless, the common origin of the cognates found in diverse modern and ancient "IE" languages points seriously to some common origin.
Renfrew was an archeologist more than a linguist or than a geneticist. Demoule like him made the same error: to think that a breeding people had only a few words to name diverse specimen of a same race. There were surely more than a PIE word for horse according to their sex, age and diverse utilities (bare, fruitful females…, races, riding or agrary work...). The same in todate languages, not only for horses, but for the domestic animals (not by force the pet ones).
sometimes languages imagine or use new words linked to fonctions in place of race origin: French "monture", "dextrier" for "cheval" horse -
among diverse cognate languages, by time, the precise meanings of these words can be exchanged between themselves, as it occurs almost always among dialects of the same language; some terms are lost or took a too evolved meanig, other created to take their place.
"horse" as its cognates "ros" (netherlands, < *hros) reflects a previous *kors and I see NO oppositon to compare it with the Sanskrit *carati nor I see impossibility to lonk the meanings of run, walk, move - in Slavic languages a same root is used to form the words for cart, car and way by instance, this to show how a word and its derived forms can took a lot of meanings by progressive evolution ; that said, horse was illustrated by *ec > eachin Gaelic, epos in Gaulishand vaḥ in Sanskrit, and their community of origin is hard to deny, I think. But in Sanskrit as in every language of horses culture, this animal had/has more than a name ! And we have to remember a lot of ancient (common) words has been lost in most than an modern language, which were present in former periods.
Cornish. Hordhes Ram and sheep.
Gaelic. Hoirde. In urging cattle (go on)
Now why has a name for other animals been used for horse that I can only make a guess. Only thing I can think of is when the germanics invaded Britian they picked up a common farm related term, perhaps many animals in the field and applied it, maybe out of confusion.
 
Cornish. Hordhes Ram and sheep.
Gaelic. Hoirde. In urging cattle (go on)
Now why has a name for other animals been used for horse that I can only make a guess. Only thing I can think of is when the germanics invaded Britian they picked up a common farm related term, perhaps many animals in the field and applied it, maybe out of confusion.

Sorry, have you really read my post you refer to? *kor-s supposed I-E form of ONE of the diverse names given to horse in WesternGermanic dialects - the "Celtic" words hordhes and hoirde sound to me as words loaned by Celtic to Germanic (Anglo-Saxon or English here). It isn't the contrary! They don't apply to horse meaning.

&: Ref. for English herd
From Middle English herde, heerde, heorde, from Old English hierd, heord (“herd, flock; keeping, care, custody”), from Proto-West Germanic *herdu, from Proto-Germanic *herdō (“herd”), from Proto-Indo-European *ḱerdʰ- (“file, row, herd”).
 

This thread has been viewed 10653 times.

Back
Top