# Latin "Jacobus" > Vulgar Latin "Jacomus"



## CitizenEmpty

Was there a reasonable sound change from the Latin /b/ to the Vulgar Latin /m/ happened? For example, Latin "Jacobus" > Vulgar Latin "Jacomus".

I believe this would explain the French word "samedi" with the "same" part is a simplification of the Latin "sabattum".


----------



## ahvalj

I don't think it was a regular sound change (as it didn't occur in the inherited vocabulary): rather, a casual modification of two borrowed words (>_Jacomus_ and _sambatum_).


----------



## mataripis

I think jacomus is applicable when we as a group is involved.


----------



## fdb

CitizenEmpty said:


> Was there a reasonable sound change from the Latin /b/ to the Vulgar Latin /m/ happened? For example, Latin "Jacobus" > Vulgar Latin "Jacomus".
> 
> I believe this would explain the French word "samedi" with the "same" part is a simplification of the Latin "sabattum".



Samedi is from sabbatum (double bb, single t), with dissimilation of geminate bb > mb > m, possibly influenced by the ancestor of German Samstag. It is thus not a parallel to the development of Jacobus (with one b) to Jacomus > Jaime, James etc.


----------



## ahvalj

What about the Old High German _sambaztag _(http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/sambaztag)?


----------



## fdb

Yes, I mean OHG. I cited the NHG form "Samstag" only to make things simpler.


----------



## ahvalj

Taking into consideration also the Middle Greek *_σάμβατον_ (Tsakonian _σάμβα _and reflexes in some Slavic languages, e. g. Old Church Slavonic _cѫбота/sǫbota _with a nasal _o_) and Romanian _sâmbătă_ (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sâmbătă), as well as other Romance parallels (Rheto-Romance _samda, somda, sonda_) it appears that this form is older than the French language and existed in parallel already in the early Christian times. I still think (post #2) that this was, together with _Jacomus_, a banal casual modification of a foreign word. Such changes often happen quite arbitrarily in alien-sounding borrowings.


----------



## ahvalj

A good illustration of the fate of borrowings is the previous stage of the Greek language. The Indo-Europeans that had conquered Greece borrowed a huge number of lexemes from the language(s) of the local population. Since the phonetics and the overall shape of words in that language(s) were very different from the Indo-European ones, the Ancient Greek dialects often show great variability in the phonetic and morphological adjustment of these borrowings. Many hundreds of examples as well as an introductory chapter on the pre-Greek substrate can be found in _Beekes RSP · 2010 · Etymological dictionary of Greek_ (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJeWVWWWcydS0wVE0/view?usp=sharing).


----------



## irinet

The days of the week in Romanian are all of Latin origins with no exception. 'Sâmbăta'  was for Saturnus deity.


----------



## berndf

irinet said:


> The days of the week in Romanian are all of Latin origins with no exception. 'Sâmbăta'  was for Saturnus deity.


_Sâmbăta _is certainly also from Late Latin _Dies Sabbati_ as in all other Romance languages or maybe directly or indirectly via Slavic from Greek _σάββατον _which is also the origin of _Dies Sabbati_; so it doesn't matter too much. Interestingly, only some Germanic languages retained the old Latin name _Dies Saturni_: English _Saturday_, Dutch _Saterdag_, Low German _Saterdag_.


----------



## fdb

In the ancient world there were two forms of the seven-day week. First, the Jewish week (eventually adopted by Christians, Manichaeans and Muslims) has numbered days from one (Sunday) to six (Friday) and the Sabbath on the seventh day. Although the Sabbath is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, the use of the numbered week for dating is not attested before the first century BC, first with Jews, and then in the New Testament and other Christian texts. Second, the planetary week, where each of the seven days is named after a planet (Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Juppiter, Venus, Saturn) is based on the astrological doctrine of the Lords of the Hours and the Lords of the Days; it is alluded to by the Roman poet Tibullus in the 1st century BC, then fully developed by the astrologer Vettius Valens in the 2nd century AD. German uses the Germanic equivalents of the Latin planetary names (Sonntag, Montag, Dienstag…) but replaces Saturn’s day by the Christian Samstag “Sabbath-day”, alongside Sonnabend.

To return to the topic: the dissimilation of –bb- to –mb- in the descendants of the Hebrew šabbāṯ happened apparently independently in a number of different languages, for example also in Manichaean Middle Persian šambed (written šmbyd), New Persian šambeh (written شنبه), which derive from Aramaic šabbṯā, and cannot be influenced by the Romance, Germanic and Slavic forms mentioned earlier in this thread. As suggested above, it is possible that the late Latin *sambati was influenced by German forms with –mb-, but I would not rule out the possibility that the dissimilation happened independently in Romance and Germanic.


----------



## berndf

Paul Wexler: _Three heirs to a Judeo-Latin Legacy: Judeo-Ibero-Romance, Yiddish and Rotwelsch (Mediterranean Language and Culture Monograph Series)_, p.18:
_The dissimilation of He bb>mb is widespread in the pronunciation of Hebrew words in Asian Jewish languages (and in some coterritorial non-Jewish languages) and I believe it is of Judeo-Greek origin.
_
This means that the assimilation probably always existed since the earliest days of Christianity. It just wasn't always reflected in spelling.


----------



## fdb

Actually, the dissimilation bb > mb, dd > nd, gg > ng is a well-known feature of Babylonian Aramaic, which inherited it from Neo-Babylonian (i.e., the late phase of Akkadian). It is not of Judaeo-Greek origin.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> Actually, the dissimilation bb > mb, dd > nd, gg > ng is a well-known feature of Babylonian Aramaic, which inherited it from Neo-Babylonian (i.e., the late phase of Akkadian). It is not of Judaeo-Greek origin.



Of course. That this doesn't mean the Graeco-Jewish dissimilation must necessarily be derived from the Akkadian dissimilation.


----------



## ahvalj

So, we seem to come to two unrelated shifts. As to _Jacomus_, I think the driving force was the uniqueness of the phonetic structure of _Jacobus_: if I am not mistaken, it was the only (postclassical) Latin word with -_obus_ after a stressed syllable. Nouns on_ '-omus_ didn't exist (?) either, but _'-imus_ (in verbs) and _'-amus_ (in Greek nouns) were widespread.


----------



## fdb

ahvalj said:


> So, we seem to come to two unrelated shifts. As to _Jacomus_, I think the driving force was the uniqueness of the phonetic structure of _Jacobus_: if I am not mistaken, it was the only (postclassical) Latin word with -_obus_ after a stressed syllable.



http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&lookup=obus&lang=la



ahvalj said:


> Nouns on_ '-omus_ didn't exist (?) either,



http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lang=la&type=end&page=1&lookup=omus


----------



## ahvalj

As far as I understand, only _aerophobus, Deiphobus_ and _hydrophobus_ were proparoxytone among these -_obus_ words.

-_Omus_ looks more promising: only Greek compound words among proparoxytona, but yes, the rhyme did exist, that explains _Jacomus_ (after _auricomus_ etc.).


----------



## fdb

Click on "Lewis & Short" in each line to see the dictionary entry, with indication of the length of the vowels. Virtually all of these words have a short o in the paenultima.


----------



## ahvalj

Thanks. This adds three more words on -_probus_ plus _orobus_. Well, after all, _Jacobus_ hasn't disappeared, isn't it? ,-)


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

ahvalj said:


> So, we seem to come to two unrelated shifts. As to _Jacomus_, I think the driving force was the uniqueness of the phonetic structure of _Jacobus_: if I am not mistaken, it was the only (postclassical) Latin word with -_obus_ after a stressed syllable. Nouns on_ '-omus_ didn't exist (?) either, but _'-imus_ (in verbs) and _'-amus_ (in Greek nouns) were widespread.



What about cubitus and the modern Italian doublet cubito & gomito, both stressed on the first syllable?


----------



## ahvalj

Angelo di fuoco said:


> What about cubitus and the modern Italian doublet cubito & gomito, both stressed on the first syllable?


_Cubito_ is obviously a Latin borrowing (we would expect **_coveto_ or **_covito_); _gomito_ is too esoteric: let the native speakers explain.


----------



## ahvalj

All the online dictionaries I have checked derive _gomito_ from _cubitus_, which is expected, but don't explain such a strange development. 

When such cases occur in the Indo-European etymology, the word is either called influenced by another one or is suspected to be unrelated. For example, there is the old story with Latin _habēre_ vs. Old High German _habên_, which shouldn't be related phonetically as the Latin word is regularly connected with the German _geben_ (both from *_ghe(H)bh_-), whereas the German word nicely corresponds to the Latin _capere_ (both from *_keHp_-). This is the maximum that can be safely said. However, one may speculate that, since the IE had restrictions on the cooccurrence of several kinds of consonants within a root, the earlier, middle IE, prototype of both roots could have been **_ghe(H)p_- or **_ke(H)bh_-, which was levelled to either direction when the law of cooccurrence became active. Just as an illustration of how the sound irregularities may be explained sometimes.


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> _Cubito_ is obviously a Latin borrowing (we would expect **_coveto_ or **_covito_); _gomito_ is too esoteric ...


I can imagine also _**gobbito, _perhaps of southern origin (the _bb _like in _debbo _vs. _devo_, for the initial _g_ no example comes to my mind, but we could surely find some). However, it doesn't explain the _m _...  

A very "esoteric" solution could be something like this: _cubitus > ... > *gobbito >*gombito >*gommito > *gomito _(_mm>m_: northern "correction")_. _For _mb > mm_ see e.g. _palumma _< _palumba _in Neapolitan.


----------



## ahvalj

It looks plausible in principle, but words in Italian normally don't evolve so far and so irregularly, that's the problem. The standard development of _cubitus_ would have been **_cotto _or, with optional preservation of the post-stressed internal syllable, as I had written, **_coveto/covito._​ Are there dialects with a regular _b_>_bb_? **_Tabbola_? **_Stabbamo_?


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> ... Are there dialects with a regular _b_>_bb_? **_Tabbola_? **_Stabbamo_?


As far as I know, no (at least not in the sense of regular), however in general we can find either _v_ or _bb _in intervocalic position, but not _b _(except of borrowed and learned words, of course). Plus, in some dialects the gemination of consonants is quite productive (not only in case of _raddoppiamento fonosintattico_, but also "tendentiousely", i.e. unetymologically in some cases).

I've found the following interesting informations:
1. _Gomito _in Neapolitan is _gù*v*itu _(according to this source). 
2. The archaical forms of _gomito _were _go*mb*ito _(!) and _go*v*ito _(according to this source). Thus the evolution _b>bb>mb>mm>m_ (post #23) seems to be possible. 

The "problem" with _Jacomus _is a bit different because while _gomito _seems to be explainable within the Italo-Romance linguistical area, in case of _Jacomus _a vulgar Latin common ancestor is supposed and we have a big number of variants for the name _Jacob _in all the Romance languages, with and without _b>m _(_Jaime, Jaume, Jacques, Giacomo, Jacobo, Giacobbe, Giacopo, Jacopo, Iago, Yago_, ...). 

The question is, if _Jacomus _derives somehow directly from _Jacobus_, or we should rather suppose some intermediate form like e.g. *_Jacombus_.


----------



## ahvalj

The _Jacobus/Jacomus_ diversity was obviously influenced by the church Latin: on the one hand, we see completely natural forms, like _Jaume/Yago/Giacomo, _on the other, the official ones with minimal phonetic adaptation, like _Jacobo/Jacob, _and on the third — various intermediate offshots. The -_p_- and -_bb_- in Italian is especially indicative as the language tried to get rid of the alien intervocal -_b_-.

Update. Interestingly, in Russian this name had only one, official, variant, _Yakov_ (with _v_<_b_ in post-ancient Greek), with a surname _Yakovlev_ ("Jacob's"), but in the real life people seemed to use various diminutives, exemplified by the surnames _Yashin_ (from _Yasha_), _Yakunin_ (from _Yakunya_), _Yakushkin_ (from _Yakushka_) etc.


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> The _Jacobus/Jacomus_ diversity was obviously influenced by the church Latin ...


Yes, or by the Bible itself giving more importance/authority to the biblical person. E.g. in Hungarian _Jakab _is the common variant (as christian name), but the biblical person is _Jákob_.


----------



## francisgranada

fdb said:


> ... the dissimilation of –bb- to –mb- in the descendants of the Hebrew šabbāṯ happened apparently independently in a number of different languages ...


For curiosity, a similar phenomenon exists also in Hungarian, but in the opposite direction: the Finno-Ugric _-mp-_ has regularly developped to _-b/bb-_; _-nk-_ to _-g/gg-__; _etc... However, inspite of the possible independent  correspondance of _bb<>mb _in many languages, in case of _Sabbat _I'd rather suppose a common source (the Greek *_σάμβατον_?) for the European variants like _cѫбота (Slavic), __sâmbăta (Ro), szombat (Hu), __Samstag (German)_, _etc ..._ 

By the way, in the Slavic languages the development of _Sabbat_ seems to me a bit irregular: the presupposed Slavic _cѫбота _should regularly give _*subota (__cyбота)  _in Russian and in the Western Slavic languages, not the actual Russian _cy*бб*ота _and the  Polish/Czech/Slovak _s*o*bota_. Even more, the Polish should preserve the nasal _ѫ_ in this case (_cѫбота > _*_s__ąbota_). Is there any explanation for this?


----------



## ahvalj

The double _bb _in Russian is late and purely orthographic, introduced after classical examples for greater solidity. _Sobota, _attested in some Slavic languages, continues *_sabatā_, with short _a_>_o_ around the 7—8th centuries (cp. _Slovensko_ vs. _Slavic, _borrowed before this shift). Thus, Slavic actually possesses both the original and the dissimilated variants of this word.
_
B_ instead of _v_ may be explained either by the antiquity of this borrowing, at which stage Southern Slavic still didn't possess _v_ (the future _v_ was still _w_ in all positions), or by this borrowing having occured from Latin instead of Greek.


----------



## francisgranada

Thanks (this explains also the lack of the nasal _ą _in the Polish _sobota). 

_


----------



## HUMBERT0

ahvalj said:


> The _Jacobus/Jacomus_ diversity was obviously influenced by the church Latin: on the one hand, we see completely natural forms, like _Jaume/Yago/Giacomo, _on the other, the official ones with minimal phonetic adaptation, like _Jacobo/Jacob, _and on the third — various intermediate offshots. The -_p_- and -_bb_- in Italian is especially indicative as the language tried to get rid of the alien intervocal -_b_-.
> 
> Update. Interestingly, in Russian this name had only one, official, variant, _Yakov_ (with _v_<_b_ in post-ancient Greek), with a surname _Yakovlev_ ("Jacob's"), but in the real life people seemed to use various diminutives, exemplified by the surnames _Yashin_ (from _Yasha_), _Yakunin_ (from _Yakunya_), _Yakushkin_ (from _Yakushka_) etc.


In Spanish we have Jacobo, but we also have *Santiago*, the epistle of Saint James is called epístola de Santiago in Spanish.
Saludos


----------



## francisgranada

HUMBERT0 said:


> In Spanish we have Jacobo, but we also have *Santiago*, the epistle of Saint James is called epístola de Santiago in Spanish.Saludos


_Sant_iago is _Saint _James, James is (was) Yago/Iago.


----------



## CitizenEmpty

Maybe the development of nasalization in consonants and/or vowels of some languages is a "secondary" product of phonological changes. Like erhua in Mandarin for example.


----------



## Alturlie

Jacomus/James &c.

I am very unsatisfied by the explanations adduced here (as, indeed, everywhere else I can find). But this forum seems a good deal more erudite than others I have come across, so I hope to find intelligent comment - and/or, if appropriate, riposte!

I can see that  "Jacomus" may be a contraction of a pet (and arguably hence vulgar) form - ie "Jacobmeus" (or some such) ie "My Jacob" - RATHER THAN an actual vowel shift - leading to forms such as Giacomo etc. However my view is that it is too great leap to move from this to "James"/"Jaume". Debate (and, hopefully, progress) is made more difficult by people merely rehearsing "well known facts" without eg citing early exemplar uses and their dates.

King James I of Aragon has just come to my attention. He was born in 1208. For all that his name may be rendered "Jaume" in Catalan, surely we SHOULD be looking to Aragonese - where the orthography is CHAIME. To me this adds powerfully to the view I have held for some time now - that James/Jaime/Jaume should be understood as a corruption of CHAIM than of Jacome/Giacomo. Chaim is an entirely different, albeit also Hebrew, name meaning "health" (whence the toast "l'chaim").

In short I say that actually "James" has nothing to do with "Jacob".

If I am correct there are at least two residual problems: (a) when did this name (James etc.) first escape from Jewish enclaves into Christian Europe (and why....) and (b) can we pin down the source of the later confusion/elision in everyone's minds?

The fact that two entirely separate names should become generally understood as one and the same or as variants of each other is a parade of general ignorance - a disappointment but not a surprise to me - for in Scotland we have, for example the Archibald/Gillespie as well as the Gregory/Grig (and variants) examples (I am sure there are many others also including mis-translations such as Guthroth => Godfrey). 

Would participants please cite the earliest examples they can for any of these name forms?


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> King James I of Aragon has just come to my attention. He was born in 1208. For all that his name may be rendered "Jaume" in Catalan, surely we SHOULD be looking to Aragonese


I am afraid, you are chasing a red herring. Aragonese <ch> stands for /tʃ/ and not for /x/. /j/ > /dʒ/ > /tʃ/ and, before front vowels, /g/ > /dʒ/ > /tʃ/  are regular in Aragonese, compare _chusticia, cheografía._


----------



## fdb

Alturlie said:


> In short I say that actually "James" has nothing to do with "Jacob".



In all English translations of the New Testament "James" translates Ἰάκωβος.


----------



## Alturlie

fdb said:


> In all English translations of the New Testament "James" translates Ἰάκωβος.


Yes... I am very well aware of this - but the problem persists as to when this dates from


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> I am afraid, you are chasing a red herring. Aragonese <ch> stands for /tʃ/ and not for /x/. /j/ > /dʒ/ > /tʃ/ and, before front vowels, /g/ > /dʒ/ > /tʃ/  are regular in Aragonese, compare _chusticia, cheografía._


Thanks for this input. However unless you can show me differently I think this is of no consequence as (i) we are in any case transliterating from Hebrew to the Roman alphabet and (2) spelling was by no means standard at that date. I had come to the conclusion about James from Hebrew Chaim long before I was aware of James I of Aragon - or indeed any specifically Spanish connection. I may indeed be chasing a red herring but this has yet to be demonstrated. It is just that demonstration - or otherwise - that I am chasing. Assertion is no substitute for demonstration or argument.

The Hebrew practice was particularly to name a sickly boy Chaim in an attempt to dupe the Angel of Death - so it is possible that the first non-Jewish European Chaim was actually originally Jacob (or a variant) - given that the custom may have been adopted in a mangled way (ie as a nickname or for luck AFTER being named originally). There are loads of different possibilities. But what I am after is fact - evidence (documentary or otherwise) - rather than the mere rehearsal of a "well known fact".


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> we are in any case transliterating from Hebrew to the Roman alphabet and (2) spelling was by no means standard at that date.


No we are not transliterating from Hebrew. You cannot postulate a completely new etymology for the name of someone who lived more than 700 years ago just because after a spelling reform 30 years ago they started to spell _Jaime_ with _ch_ in Aragonese for the phonetic reasons I explained.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> No we are not transliterating from Hebrew. You cannot invent a completely new etymology for the name of someone who lived more than 700 years ago just because after a spelling reform 30 years ago they started to spell _Jaime_ with _ch_ in Aragonese.



Thanks for this. Here I parade my ignorance. Exactly what are you saying? That prior to 30 years ago the Aragonese would have written "Jaime"? If so you almost make my point for me - spelling is not standard. I am not arguing from the spelling but from the sound.  I accept that James (and its variants) are used for Jacob (and its variants). The questions are why? and when did this start? 

The traditional explanation seems to be by some sort of natural evolution - and I find this difficult to accept (indeed I don't). But Jaime from Chaim is no stretch at all - and I am a disciple of William of Occam. So I believe that a misunderstood conflation (as with eg Gregory/Greg I cited earlier) is a far simpler and more reasonable explanation. But both these proposals lack specific dating.


----------



## Penyafort

Alturlie said:


> However my view is that it is too great leap to move from this to "James"/"Jaume". Debate (and, hopefully, progress) is made more difficult by people merely rehearsing "well known facts" without eg citing early exemplar uses and their dates.
> 
> King James I of Aragon has just come to my attention. He was born in 1208. For all that his name may be rendered "Jaume" in Catalan, surely we SHOULD be looking to Aragonese - where the orthography is CHAIME. To me this adds powerfully to the view I have held for some time now - that James/Jaime/Jaume should be understood as a corruption of CHAIM than of Jacome/Giacomo.





berndf said:


> I am afraid, you are chasing a red herring. Aragonese <ch> stands for /tʃ/ and not for /x/. /j/ > /dʒ/ > /tʃ/ and, before front vowels, /g/ > /dʒ/ > /tʃ/  are regular in Aragonese, compare _chusticia, cheografía._



As Berndf says, <ch> in Aragonese stands for /tʃ/ and, for words coming from initial Latin -IA, it is a current spelling use. The spelling of it in medieval Aragonese was either JAYME or JACME.

Occitan, Catalan and Ribagorzan Aragonese were -they still are- very close languages. The native language of James I is still a matter of debate these days -having grown up first in Carcassona and Monzon. We are not certain to what extent he actually wrote the Llibre dels Feyts or Book of the Deeds, the first of the Catalan Chronicles. It is likely that he spoke a Catalan mixed with the influences of his youth. In any case, whether he was called JACME, JAUME or JAYME, is hard to say for sure. Both JAUME and JAYME clearly come from JACME, thought to be an Occitan form in origin, very likely coming from a North Italian version like Jacome. But not related at all to CHAIM /xaim/, as the etymological steps would have been of different nature.


----------



## Alturlie

fdb said:


> In all English translations of the New Testament "James" translates Ἰάκωβος.



There is a further problem here - for in the Bible, James is directly from Jacobos - not the proposed intermediary Jacome or whatever. And I am sure that the Biblical translators would have been more than aware of the concept of the "pet" form and would not have used it. So first we need (well I need) the date of the first such translation - which will give a benchmark showing the conflation (of forms even if you do not like conflation of names) must have occurred prior to this. For example can you say one way or the other whether this applies to the Wessex Bible?

So far we have James I of Aragon b1208. [The first James in Scotland was, I think, the son of Alexander Stewart the 4th High Steward -and I place this James' birth at c1251 (the earlier (more traditional) date of 1243 has been generally rejected, but I may be tempted to resurrect it depending on research efforts I am in the middle of).


----------



## Alturlie

Penyafort said:


> As Berndf says, <ch> in Aragonese stands for /tʃ/ and, for words coming from initial Latin -IA, it is a current spelling use. The spelling of it in medieval Aragonese was either JAYME or JACME.
> 
> Occitan, Catalan and Ribagorzan Aragonese were -they still are- very close languages. The native language of James I is still a matter of debate these days -having grown up first in Carcassona and Monzon. We are not certain to what extent he actually wrote the Llibre dels Feyts or Book of the Deeds, the first of the Catalan Chronicles. It is likely that he spoke a Catalan mixed with the influences of his youth. In any case, whether he was called JACME, JAUME or JAYME, is hard to say for sure. Both JAUME and JAYME clearly come from JACME, thought to be an Occitan form in origin, very likely coming from a North Italian version like Jacome. But not related at all to CHAIM /xaim/, as the etymological steps would have been of different nature.



Thank your for this.  The introduction of "it is hard to say" is also helpful. Whenever anyone says "obviously" I say it is time to re-examine the assumptions. [Just as in a game of chess once your opponent makes a move you should re-evaluate from the beginning rather than continuing your previous lines of thought.] It is NOT "clear" to me that these forms come from "Jacme" (dates and geography please for verified examples of this form?). But I agree that if Jaime DID come from Jacme it would have required 'different etymological steps' compared to its coming from Chaim.


----------



## Alturlie

Penyafort said:


> As Berndf says, <ch> in Aragonese stands for /tʃ/ and, for words coming from initial Latin -IA, it is a current spelling use. The spelling of it in medieval Aragonese was either JAYME or JACME.
> 
> Occitan, Catalan and Ribagorzan Aragonese were -they still are- very close languages. The native language of James I is still a matter of debate these days -having grown up first in Carcassona and Monzon. We are not certain to what extent he actually wrote the Llibre dels Feyts or Book of the Deeds, the first of the Catalan Chronicles. It is likely that he spoke a Catalan mixed with the influences of his youth. In any case, whether he was called JACME, JAUME or JAYME, is hard to say for sure. Both JAUME and JAYME clearly come from JACME, thought to be an Occitan form in origin, very likely coming from a North Italian version like Jacome. But not related at all to CHAIM /xaim/, as the etymological steps would have been of different nature.



Thank you for clearing up that "Ch" for "J" is recent. It is helpful to know even though it makes no difference to my proposition. 

"Either Jayme or Jacme" is a very interesting phrase and rather supports my guess that Jacme may be no more than a scribal error.


----------



## berndf

_Jacme _is the Occitan version  of the name and not a scribal error. The modern pronunciation is [dʒamme], which confirms the loss of _c_ as an assimilation effect. At the times of James I of Aragon, Occitan, Catalan and Aragonese were still pretty much a single dialect continuum and James himself was born in Montpelier, i.e. in a Occitan speaking country. When Penyafort said


Penyafort said:


> whether he was called JACME, JAUME or JAYME, is hard to say for sure


he meant that it is not clear which dialectal variant of the name he used himself.

Just a small side note:


Alturlie said:


> Chaim is an entirely different, albeit also Hebrew, name meaning "health"


Actually _ḥayim _means _life_, not _health_. It is grammatically plural but the singular (_ḥay_) is not used for the noun, only for the adjective (=_alive_).


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> _Jacme _is the Occitan version  of the name and not a scribal error. The modern pronunciation is [dʒamme], which confirms the loss of _c_ as an assimilation effect. At the times of James I of Aragon, Occitan, Catalan and Aragonese were still pretty much a single dialect continuum and James himself was born in Montpelier, i.e. in a Occitan speaking country. When Penyafort said
> 
> he meant that it is not clear which dialectal variant of the name he used himself.
> 
> Just a small side note:
> 
> Actually _ḥayim _means _life_, not _health_. It is grammatically plural but the singular (_ḥay_) is not used for the noun, only for the adjective (=_alive_).




I stand corrected here regarding Hayim. The Clarification is interesting (and demonstrated the limits of my knowledge) but does not affect the argument.
But no - the fact that there is no "c" does NOT "confirm the loss of c". It only confirms it if it was there in the first place - and so far there is no evidence to this effect.


----------



## Alturlie

fdb said:


> In all English translations of the New Testament "James" translates Ἰάκωβος.



Well... regarding English translations what you say turns out not to be true. In the Wessex Bible - which I had never heard of before today, but I see is dated to the 12th C, the rendition is "iacobum" Wessex Gospels c.1175 Textus Receptus Bibles v21 is the first occurrence. So sorry to contradict you - but we now have quite a tight time window.


----------



## Alturlie

HUMBERT0 said:


> In Spanish we have Jacobo, but we also have *Santiago*, the epistle of Saint James is called epístola de Santiago in Spanish.
> Saludos



Thanks for this input. There is no problem with Santiago, of course - Iago/Jacobo is a natural alternative rendition. It is of the same order of  variation as Peter and Petros


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> But no - the fact that there is no "c" does NOT "confirm the loss of c". It only confirms it if it was there in the first place - and so far there is no evidence to this effect.


Well, [jakomo] > [dʒakomo] > [dʒacmo] > [dʒacme] > [dʒamme] is a completly logical development and there has at no point in time been any doubt that the name at any development stage corresponded to Latin _Iacobus_.

On the other hand there is no evidence that the name is related to Hebrew _ḥayim_ and there is no plausible development that would make Hebrew _ḥ_ become [dʒ].

At this point, it would make much more sense to ask you for evidence rather than for you to ask us for even more evidence.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> Well, [jakomo] > [dʒakomo] > [dʒacmo] > [dʒacme] > [dʒamme] is a completly logical development and there has at no point in time been any doubt that the name at any development stage corresponded to Latin _Iacobus_.
> 
> On the other hand there is no evidence that the name is related to Hebrew _ḥayim_ and there is no plausible development that would make Hebrew _ḥ_ become [dʒ].
> 
> At this point, it would make much more sense to ask you for evidence rather than for you to ask us for even more evidence.



Well the way the Spanish pronounce Jaime is pretty well exactly the same way Jews pronounce "Chaim" - the equivalent of "ch" in Scottish "loch". This is not at all similar to the way the French start Jacques.  The  "dʒ" is similar in Italian and English - but I am not seeing the read across to French or Spanish. I think you are demanding a uniformity of pronunciation which does not apply elsewhere. 

Glaswegians have difficulty understanding people who live in Buchan (North of Aberdeen) and the BBC considered putting on subtitles for the London audience for a programme set in Newcastle.  If you are trying to claim that the Aragonese (or Catalans or Occidans etc.) pronounced the "J" as "dʒ" then (a) where is the evidence and (b) when did it morph to "ch" as in "loch"?


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> Well the way the Spanish pronounce Jaime is pretty well exactly the same way Jews pronounce "Chaim" - the equivalent of "ch" in Scottish "loch".


This is (apart for a few minor details concerning some intermediate steps) a well understood and documented process that took place over a 200 years period in the 16th and 17th century (basically first de-affricatisation [dʒ] > [ʒ], then devoicing caused merger with <x> = [ʃ], with further development of the merged phoneme: [ʃ] > [ç] > [x]) and has no relevance for the current discussion because it happened too late.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> This is (apart for a few minor details concerning some intermediate steps) a well understood and documented process that took place over a 200 years period in the 16th and 17th century (basically first de-affricatisation [dʒ] > [ʒ], then devoicing caused merger with <x> = [ʃ], with further development of the merged phoneme: [ʃ] > [ç] > [x]) and has no relevance for the current discussion because it happened too late.



I can see the potential for the softening to Jacques, but I am not ready to buy into the move to "ch" which seems rather to be the reverse process.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> Well... regarding English translations what you say turns out not to be true. In the Wessex Bible - which I had never heard of before today, but I see is dated to the 12th C, the rendition is "iacobum" Wessex Gospels c.1175 Textus Receptus Bibles v21 is the first occurrence. So sorry to contradict you - but we now have quite a tight time window.


1. As one can easily see, this text is in Old English. _James_ is a French loan into Middle English. @fdb was of course speaking of Middle and modern English.

2. Iacobum is not a translation but the unaltered Latin declension of the direct object  (_he seah ... Iacobum..._).


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> I can see the potential for the softening to Jacques, but I am not ready to buy into the move to "ch" which seems rather to be the reverse process.


We are not speaking about a speculation about some pre-historic events here but about a development in a language with an extensive literary corpus. I am afraid, there is not much to _buy into_.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Alturlie said:


> Well the way the Spanish pronounce Jaime is pretty well exactly the same way Jews pronounce "Chaim" - the equivalent of "ch" in Scottish "loch". This is not at all similar to the way the French start Jacques.  The  "dʒ" is similar in Italian and English - but I am not seeing the read across to French or Spanish. I think you are demanding a uniformity of pronunciation which does not apply elsewhere.
> 
> Glaswegians have difficulty understanding people who live in Buchan (North of Aberdeen) and the BBC considered putting on subtitles for the London audience for a programme set in Newcastle.  If you are trying to claim that the Aragonese (or Catalans or Occidans etc.) pronounced the "J" as "dʒ" then (a) where is the evidence and (b) when did it morph to "ch" as in "loch"?



As to "J" pronounced [dʒ] in Catalan, it is pronounced this way in the Western dialects. Berndf has already written about Occitan. It IS pronounced this way.

As to Jaime deriving from Chaim, you have to take into account

1) where does the -e come from? It does not appear in Jerusalén, Belén, Efraín. Please note the final -n instead of -m. Spanish, Catalan, Aragonese all sometimes keep the postonic -e in final syllables for the sake of commodity, but they never add it. 
2) Chaim has the syllable structure cha|im, not *[chajm], and is stressed on the first syllable, whereas a Spanish borrowing from Hebrew would have the stress on the second: *Jaín.


----------



## berndf

Angelo di fuoco said:


> 2) Chaim has the syllable structure cha|im, not *[chajm], and is stressed on the first syllable


A slight correction: This stress on the first syllable is Yiddish. The Hebrew syllable structure is_ ḥa-yim_ (Hebrew syllables cannot start with a vowel, the second syllable is _yim_, not _im_) with the stress on the second syllable. In Modern Israeli Hebrew, the proper name (as opposed to the common noun) is often stressed on the first syllable but that is Yiddish influence.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

No one considered this other possible origin? : Joachim -> Jacomus

While the name Jacobus (Jakub) led to Spanish "Iago, Yago" and to Sardinian "Jagu" in Logudorese; "Jacu" in Nuorese (the *J* is pronounced like *Y* in northern Sardinian)


----------



## Alturlie

francisgranada said:


> _Sant_iago is _Saint _James, James is (was) Yago/Iago.



Sorry to have to resort to extreme pedantry, but actually all you can say is that many people now call Saint Yacov/Jacobus/Yago/Iago "James" (and we have the corrupted derivative "Diego"). Clearly he was NOT "James" in Israel/Palestine and he was still not James in the Wessex Bible - dating, as I understand it, to the later 1100s. But he WAS called James by Wycliffe (later 1300s). So the problem becomes when and how and where this change took place.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> A slight correction: This stress on the first syllable is Yiddish. The Hebrew syllable structure is_ ḥa-yim_ (Hebrew syllables cannot start with a vowel, the second syllable is _yim_, not _im_) with the stress on the second syllable. In Modern Israeli Hebrew, the proper name (as opposed to the common noun) is often stressed on the first syllable but that is Yiddish influence.



Thanks for this - very helpful input which demonstrates how easy it is to slip into assumptions


----------



## Alturlie

Sardokan1.0 said:


> No one considered this other possible origin? : Joachim -> Jacomus
> 
> I love it!!! - so things are even more murky than I had supposed!


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> 1. As one can easily see, this text is in Old English. _James_ is a French loan into Middle English. @fdb was of course speaking of Middle and modern English.
> 
> 2. Iacobum is not a translation but the unaltered Latin declension of the direct object  (_he seah ... Iacobum..._).



Sorry - please make allowance for my lack of background. When you say "of course speaking..." this was not stated and was not at all apparent to me. Precision is required if progress is to be made.

Regarding 2. I think you are arguing against yourself. I did not use the word translation. I said "rendered" - ie I was making no assumption about what the author did. The fact remains that it is not "James" here.

It is interesting that you assert a French origin for James - other (at least _soi-disant_) experts assert otherwise. I have no view (which is why I am trying to find out or at least whittle down the scope of the unknowing) except that it seems a bit greedy of the French when the also have the perfectly good form Jacques. And there is the problem of what you mean by "French" (this is quite heavily date dependent).

I think there is another complicating factor - in English it is generally held that "Jack" is a pet form of "John". This seems wholly bizarre to me and can surely be based solely on ignorance. I would guess that it only became possible after the general adoption of "James"


----------



## Alturlie

Sardokan1.0 said:


> No one considered this other possible origin? : Joachim -> Jacomus
> 
> While the name Jacobus (Jakub) let to Spanish "Iago, Yago" and to Sardinian "Jagu" in Logudorese; "Jacu" in Nuorese (the *J* is pronounced like *Y* in northern Sardinian)



I find this helpful also. Those who claim that James is a derivative of Yacov really need to explain how the "dʒ" intruded in the first place - Italy perhaps RATHER THAN Spain?


----------



## berndf

Sardokan1.0 said:


> While the name Jacobus (Jakub) let to Spanish "Iago, Yago" and to Sardinian "Jagu" in Logudorese; "Jacu" in Nuorese (the *J* is pronounced like *Y* in northern Sardinian)


While _Jaime_ is derived from _Iacobus_ directly, _Diego_ and _Yago_ are from _Santiago_ which is from the compound _Sanctus Iacobus.
_
Initial Latin _j_ regularly merged with the palatalised _g_. The [j] in _Diego_ and _Yago_ is not plausible derivation from _Iacobus_ unless we assume it is from a compound.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> While _Jaime_ is derived from _Iacobus_ directly, _Diego_ and _Yago_ are from _Santiago_ which is from the compound _Sanctus Iacobus._



Thanks for this. It is all assertion and you offer no timescale. Clearly Diego represents a borrowing of the "t". It is not clear to me why Iago should be consequent upon Santiago. Whether or not Jaime derives from Jacobus is still to be seen. It is widely so asserted but I am not yet satisfied (which is why I raised the question) - on the contrary as this discussion has progressed it has seemed less and less likely.

We noted earlier that James I of Aragon was born in Montpellier. I see that there was a strong Jewish presence there at the time - so there may be no need even to make reference to the Jewish quarter of Zaragoza (although I don't think that the naming of James would have been the sole prerogative of his mother). The fact remains that no-one has yet offered any explanation as to why James (however his name was spelled) was given that name in 1208.


----------



## fdb

Sardokan1.0 said:


> No one considered this other possible origin? : Joachim -> Jacomus



Joachim is the same as Jehoiachim (2 Kings 24), Hebrew יְהוֹיָקִים‏. No connection with Jacob/James.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> I find this helpful also. Those who claim that James is a derivative of Yacov really need to explain how the "dʒ" intruded in the first place - Italy perhaps RATHER THAN Spain?


As I said before, inital Latin j merging with the palatalised g is perfectly regular. Take Italian _giustizia_ and _gente_ starting with the same sound; the same with French _justice_ and _gens_. Spanish makes no exception: _justicia_ and _gente_. This merger can be observed consistently throughout almost all Romance languages and must have occurred very early when VL/Romance was still a connected continuum.


----------



## Alturlie

fdb said:


> Joachim is the same as Jehoiachim (2 Kings 24), Hebrew יְהוֹיָקִים‏. No connection with Jacob/James.



I don't think that this was the argument. The idea floated was Jacomus from Joachim (whence to James) and Jacobus from Jacob. I do not find myself drawn to this, but it is an interesting addition to the mix as b" => "m" does not seem particularly natural (whence my suggestion of a pet form). I think Sardokan was precisely agreeing that Joachim and Jacob were not connected.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> As I said before, inital Latin j merging with the palatalised g is perfectly regular. Take Italian _giustizia_ and _gente_ starting with the same sound; the same with French _justice_ and _gens_. Spanish makes no exception: _justicia_ and _gente_. This merger can be observed consistently throughout almost all Romance languages and must have occurred very early when VL/Romance was still a connected continuum.



I can see the connection you are making - but the time you propose is very vague.... can you put a time window on this?


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> It is interesting that you assert a French origin for James - other (at least _soi-disant_) experts assert otherwise. I have no view (which is why I am trying to find out or at least whittle down the scope of the unknowing) except that it seems a bit greedy of the French when the also have the perfectly good form Jacques. And there is the problem of what you mean by "French" (this is quite heavily date dependent).


I don't think that there is any disagreement that _James_ is from French. When we are speaking of a loan into Middle English, the origin is of course Old French and not Modern French.

Attestations of _James_ (including Middle English spelling _Iame_) go back to the 13th century.

Both _James_ and _Jacques_ are found in Old French. French was not a uniform language back then. There are acutally quite a few examples of double borrowings in English from different varieties of French, like _catch_ and _warranty_ from Norman French while there are also _chase_ and _guarantee_ from standard French.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> I can see the connection you are making - but the time you propose is very vague.... can you put a time window on this?


Reaching back to unattested Vulgar Latin/Early Romance. Attestations of Romance language reach back to the 9th century (the earliest know Old French text, e.g., is the _Strasbourg oaths_). The problem is that before that time, only Latin was used in writing. Some developments that are typical for Vulgar Latin/Early Romance can only be reconstructed from commonalities in Romance languages and from mistakes/irregularities in late Latin texts that were written by scribes whose native language was not Latin any more.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> I don't think that there is any disagreement that _James_ is from French. When we are speaking of a loan into Middle English, the origin is of course Old French and not Modern French.
> 
> Attestations of _James_ (including Middle English spelling _Iame_) go back to the 13th century.
> 
> Both _James_ and _Jacques_ are found in Old French. French was not a uniform language back then. There are acutally quite a few examples of double borrowings in English from different varieties of French, like _catch_ and _warranty_ from Norman French while there are also _chase_ and _guarantee_ from standard French.



Well your 13th C offering is fine for English. As I said earlier my impression is that the first person called James in Scotland was James Stewart (born 1243x52). If you are right about 13th C then James I of Aragon (b1208) must be about the first person in (modern day) France of this name also - and we are back to the question I am pursuing - where did that name come from (specifically in this instance).

One problem is that by 1208 the Shrine to Santiago de Compostela was already very long established so that if James' parents wanted to celebrate/invoke this saint it is quite bizarre that they would select this previously  unrecorded variant of the name. This makes no sense to me - which is one extra reason for questioning the association


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> Reaching back to unattested Vulgar Latin/Early Romance. Attestations of Romance language reach back to the 9th century (the earliest know Old French text, e.g., is the _Strasbourg oaths_). The problem is that before that time, only Latin was used in writing. Some developments that are typical for Vulgar Latin/Early Romance can only be reconstructed from commonalities in Romance languages and from mistakes/irregularities in late Latin texts that were written by scribes whose native language was not Latin any more.



Well I am glad that you recognise the possibility of scribal error. There was an excellent TV series in the UK not too long ago presented by Simon Sebag Montefiore in which he set out the continuing Jewish impact and presence in Spain and its empire even after the inquisition. The thrust of all your(?)/the standard argument has been based on Latin/Christian and I just don't accept this as being the only route - the Jews and the Cathars at least must also be considered (albeit I have it on reasonable authority that James was not a name used by the Cathars).


----------



## jimqk

It seems to me that you place weight on the resemblance of the initial sound of Hebrew Chaim and of Spanish Jaime. But the development of late Latin J/G towards the modern pronunciation may seem far fetched but is well attested and shared with hundreds of other words, examples already given include gente and justicia. 
This is completely separate to the question of how Iacobus has apparently developed into Iacomus. Given the existence of forms like Giacopo, I think it's hard to discern the influence of Hebrew Chayim, no matter how appealing that may be.


----------



## Alturlie

jimqk said:


> It seems to me that you place weight on the resemblance of the initial sound of Hebrew Chaim and of Spanish Jaime. But the development of late Latin J/G towards the modern pronunciation may seem far fetched but is well attested and shared with hundreds of other words, examples already given include gente and justicia.
> This is completely separate to the question of how Iacobus has apparently developed into Iacomus. Given the existence of forms like Giacopo, I think it's hard to discern the influence of Hebrew Chayim, no matter how appealing that may be.



Great! A James joins the debate.  You are entirely correct, Jim, that the resemblance was the starting point (coupled with the obverse: the seeming dissimilarity between James and Jacobus). However what you will see from the various elements of the posts above is that the counterarguments so far do not persuade me and meanwhile I find the circumstantial evidence to be predominantly supportive of my challenging the received wisdom.

I have flown many kites before, so if a proper chain of evidence were to emerge I would be content to recant, but as you can see from Archibald/Gillespie and Gregor(y)/Greg etc. that there has been misconceived conflation in the past, so there is no _prima facie_ basis for rejecting the idea out of hand in this case. And in the discussion above we can see at least two cases where assertions have turned out to be incorrect.

My current opinion is that Jacome is a pet form (ie NOT a linguistic mutation) of Jacobo, that Joachim is actually not relevant (however tasty) and that James does come from Chaim. But I need more evidence - either way.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> My current opinion is that Jacome is a pet form (ie NOT a linguistic mutation) of Jacobo


It is actually a quite straight forward assimilation. The exact transition is not know, so the one I am giving you here is only one possibility and you will find slightly different ones in different text books but they all amount to the same thing:
Starting from Classical Latin _Iacobum_ pronounced ['ja.kɔ.bʊ̃]:  ['ja.kɔ.bʊ̃] > ['ja.kɔ.mʊ̃] (assimilation to nasal vowel) > ['ja.kɔ.mo] (de-nasalisation and VL o/ʊ-merger) > ['dʒa.kɔ.mo] (j/g-merger). If we add the to be expected raising [ɔ] > [o] in an unstressed syllable, we have arrived at the modern Italian pronunciation. There is no magic in this. Those are all very typical developments. The only ad-hoc assumption necessary is the assimilation [bʊ̃] > [mʊ̃] and that is a very plausible one, possible via an intermediate step on [mbʊ̃].


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> It is actually a quite straight forward assimilation. The exact transition is not know, so the one I am giving you here is only one possibility and you will find slightly different ones in different text books but they all amount to the same thing:
> Starting from Classical Latin _Iacobum_ pronounced ['ja.kɔ.bʊ̃]:  ['ja.kɔ.bʊ̃] > ['ja.kɔ.mʊ̃] (assimilation to nasal vowel) > ['ja.kɔ.mo] (de-nasalisation and VL o/ʊ-merger) > ['dʒa.kɔ.mo] (j/g-merger). If we add the to be expected raising [ɔ] > [o] in an unstressed syllable, we have arrived at the modern Italian pronunciation. There is no magic in this. Those are all very typical developments. The only ad-hoc assumption necessary is the assimilation [bʊ̃] > [mʊ̃] and that is a very plausible one, possible via an intermediate step on [mbʊ̃].



I am inclined to accept what you say - ie that this development on a purely linguistic basis is feasible. However is it (a) likely and (b) the most likely? A properly deep assessment of this depends on an examination of the culture of the area at the time in question, but in Gaelic  in particular parallel pet forms are not uncommon (eg Moluag: (mo-lu-ag) my little Lugh) so unless and until there are clear indications to the contrary, I think that this will continue to be my better guess.


----------



## berndf

That's put it this way: I don't know anyone who doubts this is the correct explanation. Discussions are only about details of the development.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> That's put it this way: I don't know anyone who doubts this is the correct explanation. Discussions are only about details of the development.



Well you do now! And there are the substantive problems to be addressed such as why James I of Aragon was given this name....


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> Well you do now!


I meant in the academic literature.



Alturlie said:


> And there are the substantive problems to be addressed such as why James I of Aragon was given this name....


Why would that be a problem? People being named after Biblical figures is noting unusual.


----------



## Penyafort

Just a few points on some things commented before.

Latin initial JA-/JO-/JU- (and GE-/GI-) evolved into sibilants (/ʒ/, /dʒ/ or /tʃ/) in the Romance languages, Old Spanish included.

Most languages, including Catalan, Occitan and Aragonese, have kept that pronunciation, with a tendency to simplification (specially from /dʒ/ to /ʒ/, sometimes going as far as from /ʒ/ to /j/). From a very early stage, Aragonese made them affricates /tʃ/ and still does today (whether the spelling is_ j_ or _ch_). Things are more complex in Catalan, where two pronunciations (/dʒ/, /ʒ/) are the most spread ones, the first being the oldest and typical in Western Catalan, the second being used in the general Standard. None of these languages have ever had genuine "loch" /x/ sounds.

In Spanish, reductions took place early and were much more generalized than in all other languages, turning them into y- /j/ or even dropping:

*LATIN*:  JACERE - JANUARIU (*JENUARIU) - JACTARE (*JECTARE) - GELU - *JENIPERU/*ZINIPERU - GENTE - JUGU - JUNCU/JUNCARIA - JUNGERE
_English: to lie - January - to throw - ice - juniper tree - people - yoke - reed - to yoke_

*CATALAN *[ʒ]/[dʒ]:  jaure - gener - gitar - gel - ginebre - gent - jou - jonc/jonquera - junyir
*ARAGONESE *[tʃ]: chacer - chinero - chitar - chelo - chinipro - chent - chugo - chungo - chunyir
*PORTUGUESE *[ʒ]: jazer - janeiro - _jeitar _(nowadays, deitar) - gelo - zimbro - gente - jugo - junco - jungir

*SPANISH*: yacer - enero - echar - hielo (yelo) - enebro - yente (nowadays, gente) - yugo - yunquera (nowadays, junco/junquera) - uncir​
It must also be taken into account that the phonology regarding sibilants of pre-17th century Spanish was quite more complex and much more similar to the system found in Catalan, Portuguese or Italian. Written j's in medieval Spanish were pronounced /ʒ/ as they are today in the standards of French, Catalan and Portuguese.

The current "loch" sound of modern Spanish is a late development. That is, several Old Spanish sounds evolved and merged into one single sound, /x/ (/h/ or /ç/ in Southern/Trans-Atlantic Spanish) in early Modern Spanish (15th to 17th centuries).

Now this last point is an opinion. Even if *Jaime *is a common name in modern Spanish, my impression is that this is not a genuine Castilian form, but an early import from Aragon, the Aragonese vocalization of the Occitan *Jacme*. The native form in Castilian has to be *Yago*, the logical evolution of Iaco, and its compound form *Santiago*, the name used for the apostle too. *Diego*, from Diago, would have to do with the Galician-Portuguese palatalization of it.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Modern Portuguese has either Diogo or - especially in Brazil - Thiago.



berndf said:


> Why would that be a problem? People being named after Biblical figures is noting unusual.



For all I know, Chaim is not a classical - or even extravagant - Biblical name, which leads us to the question: why the heck would a Christian ruler want to give his son a Jewish name of no Biblical dignity?


----------



## Olaszinhok

Regarding Italian, it has
*Giacomo
Giacobbe* and
*Jacopo* pronounced y*a*copo.
All these names have the same root.


----------



## Cossue

*Diego *is not really a derivative of Jacobus: it derives from the medieval name _Didacu_, common in Western Iberia. From its genitive derives de surname Díaz/Dias/Diz:


> Die Verlagerung des Akzents Dídaco > Díago > Diágo > Diégo findet mit aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach dem Schwund des intervokalischen -d- statt.


 - Becker, L. (2009). _Hispano-romanisches Namenbuch_. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. pages 385-392. ISBN 978-3-484-55523-5.


----------



## berndf

Cossue said:


> *Diego *is not really a derivative of Jacobus: it derives from the medieval name _Didacu_, common in Western Iberia. From its genitive derives de surname Díaz/Dias/Diz:
> - Becker, L. (2009). _Hispano-romanisches Namenbuch_. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. pages 385-392. ISBN 978-3-484-55523-5.


Thanks for that. I didn't know that.


----------



## Cossue

You're welcome  Although Internet abounds with the Diego < Santiago suggestion.


----------



## berndf

Like here:


> A male given name, sometimes confused or connected with the Spanish name Diego, which actually comes from Jacobus (“James”).


Would be interesting where this comes from. There is unfortunately no source.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Cossue said:


> *Diego *is not really a derivative of Jacobus: it derives from the medieval name _Didacu_, common in Western Iberia. From its genitive derives de surname Díaz/Dias/Diz:
> - Becker, L. (2009). _Hispano-romanisches Namenbuch_. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. pages 385-392. ISBN 978-3-484-55523-5.



Anything to do with the Catalan Dídac, or just a coincidence? The Catalan Wiki does know several persons with this name, not all of them from Western Iberia. Some of them also go by the name of Diego.


----------



## Cossue

Yep. It is something like "oh! it's common knowledge, you don't have to prove it". But apparently it's wrong.


----------



## Cossue

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Anything to do with the Catalan Dídac, or just a coincidence? The Catalan Wiki does know several persons with this name, not all of them from Western Iberia. Some of them also go by the name of Diego.


 It must be the same name. In any case, the Repertori d'Antropònims Catalans just records two person by that name in Catalonia prior to 1000AD. At that time it was very common in Galicia.


----------



## sumelic

Penyafort said:


> Just a few points on some things commented before.
> 
> Latin initial JA-/JO-/JU- (and GE-/GI-) evolved into sibilants (/ʒ/, /dʒ/ or /tʃ/) in the Romance languages, Old Spanish included.
> 
> Most languages, including Catalan, Occitan and Aragonese, have kept that pronunciation, with a tendency to simplification (specially from /dʒ/ to /ʒ/, sometimes going as far as from /ʒ/ to /j/). From a very early stage, Aragonese made them affricates /tʃ/ and still does today (whether the spelling is_ j_ or _ch_). Things are more complex in Catalan, where two pronunciations (/dʒ/, /ʒ/) are the most spread ones, the first being the oldest and typical in Western Catalan, the second being used in the general Standard. None of these languages have ever had genuine "loch" /x/ sounds.
> 
> In Spanish, reductions took place early and were much more generalized than in all other languages, turning them into y- /j/ or even dropping:
> 
> *LATIN*:  JACERE - JANUARIU (*JENUARIU) - JACTARE (*JECTARE) - GELU - *JENIPERU/*ZINIPERU - GENTE - JUGU - JUNCU/JUNCARIA - JUNGERE
> _English: to lie - January - to throw - ice - juniper tree - people - yoke - reed - to yoke_
> 
> *CATALAN *[ʒ]/[dʒ]:  jaure - gener - gitar - gel - ginebre - gent - jou - jonc/jonquera - junyir
> *ARAGONESE *[tʃ]: chacer - chinero - chitar - chelo - chinipro - chent - chugo - chungo - chunyir
> *PORTUGUESE *[ʒ]: jazer - janeiro - _jeitar _(nowadays, deitar) - gelo - zimbro - gente - jugo - junco - jungir
> 
> *SPANISH*: yacer - enero - echar - hielo (yelo) - enebro - yente (nowadays, gente) - yugo - yunquera (nowadays, junco/junquera) - uncir​



Hmm, what evidence is there that Spanish "yo", "yacer", "enero" etc. result from lenition of an earlier sibilant affricate [dʒ] used in Old Spanish? Couldn't the lack of sibilance simply be retained from Latin? The web page "History of Spanish Consonants" doesn't seem to describe such a sibilant stage in general (it mentions specific conditioning environments for the change of word-initial /j/ to /dʒ/). Postulating Latin [j] > [ʝ] > (in some modern Spanish accents) [dʒ] seems more parsimonious than postulating a back-and forth development like Latin [j] > [ʝ] > Old Spanish [dʒ] > [ʝ] (during the time period when coronal fricatives were devoiced in Spanish) > [dʒ].


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Penyafort said:


> *LATIN*: JACERE - JANUARIU (*JENUARIU) - JACTARE (*JECTARE) - GELU - *JENIPERU/*ZINIPERU - GENTE - JUGU - JUNCU/JUNCARIA - JUNGERE
> _English: to lie - January - to throw - ice - juniper tree - people - yoke - reed - to yoke_
> 
> *CATALAN *[ʒ]/[dʒ]: jaure - gener - gitar - gel - ginebre - gent - jou - jonc/jonquera - junyir
> *ARAGONESE *[tʃ]: chacer - chinero - chitar - chelo - chinipro - chent - chugo - chungo - chunyir
> *PORTUGUESE *[ʒ]: jazer - janeiro - _jeitar _(nowadays, deitar) - gelo - zimbro - gente - jugo - junco - jungir
> 
> *SPANISH*: yacer - enero - echar - hielo (yelo) - enebro - yente (nowadays, gente) - yugo - yunquera (nowadays, junco/junquera) - uncir




The evolution of Sardinian is quite particular, the J remained almost all like in Latin, the G is pronounced guttural, like in Game, while in other situations curiously evolved to Z.


Spoiler



_Jàchere (pronounce Jàkere)
Jannariu, Ghennariu, Ghennarzu (in Nuorese) Bènnarzu, 'ènnarzu (in Logudorese)
Ghettare (in Nuorese) Bettare, 'ettare (in Logudorese)
Ghelu (in Nuorese) Helu (in Logudorese)_
_Nìberu, Nìbberu_
_Zente 
Juàle (from Latin "Jugalem", accusative of Jugalis) iugalis - Wiktionary_
_Juncu_
_Jùnghere_


----------



## berndf

sumelic said:


> it mentions specific conditioning environments for the change of word-initial /j/ to /dʒ/


Yes, in front of back vowels. That is exactly what he said:


Penyafort said:


> Latin initial JA-/JO-/JU-


----------



## Cossue

A little off topic, but just to rule out the possibility of *Diego/Diogo* being etymologically related to *James*: this is what Lidia Becker wrote in a note in her _Hispano-romanisches Namenbuch_ (page 386, note 278): 





> Bemerkenswert ist eine vermutlich alte Tradition, die Varianten des Namens Jakobus (Iacobus) und Diego gleichstellt. Die Übersetzung von fremdsprachigen Äquivalenten zu Jakobus durch Diego hat im Sp. und Port. Fuß gefasst (VasconcellosAntrPort 88). Sogar in der Ausgabe der Enzyklopädie Espasa-Calpe aus dem Jahr 1920 erscheinen z. B. die it. Heiligen Jàcopo da Varagine (1226-1298) und Jàcopo Bianconi (1220-1301) jeweils als Diego de Vorágine und Diego Bianconi. Der hl. Jakob von Ulm / Jakob Griesinger / Alemannus (1407-1491) wird Diego Alemán / de Ulma genannt (Espasa-Calpe 18.1,989-994). Leider scheint die von Malkiel 1975a,188-9,A.25 als “extraña pareja” bezeichnete Entsprechung Diego = Jaime < Jakobus immer noch Herausgeber einiger populärer Namen-bücher bei ihren etymologischen Versuchen zu reizen.



In ancient (let's say, before 1000AD) charters and documents from NW Iberia _Didacus _> _Diago > Diego _and _Jacobus _> _Iago _are two different and unrelated names.


----------



## Alturlie

Cossue said:


> A little off topic, but just to rule out the possibility of *Diego/Diogo* being etymologically related to *James*: this is what Lidia Becker wrote in a note in her _Hispano-romanisches Namenbuch_ (page 386, note 278):
> 
> In ancient (let's say, before 1000AD) charters and documents from NW Iberia _Didacus _> _Diago > Diego _and _Jacobus _> _Iago _are two different and unrelated names.



Oooops. MY mistake - thanks very much for this clarifcation. I was quite surprised by the etymology of Santander.


----------



## Alturlie

Penyafort said:


> Just a few points on some things commented before.
> 
> Latin initial JA-/JO-/JU- (and GE-/GI-) evolved into sibilants (/ʒ/, /dʒ/ or /tʃ/) in the Romance languages, Old Spanish included.
> 
> Most languages, including Catalan, Occitan and Aragonese, have kept that pronunciation, with a tendency to simplification (specially from /dʒ/ to /ʒ/, sometimes going as far as from /ʒ/ to /j/). From a very early stage, Aragonese made them affricates /tʃ/ and still does today (whether the spelling is_ j_ or _ch_). Things are more complex in Catalan, where two pronunciations (/dʒ/, /ʒ/) are the most spread ones, the first being the oldest and typical in Western Catalan, the second being used in the general Standard. None of these languages have ever had genuine "loch" /x/ sounds.
> 
> In Spanish, reductions took place early and were much more generalized than in all other languages, turning them into y- /j/ or even dropping:
> 
> *LATIN*:  JACERE - JANUARIU (*JENUARIU) - JACTARE (*JECTARE) - GELU - *JENIPERU/*ZINIPERU - GENTE - JUGU - JUNCU/JUNCARIA - JUNGERE
> _English: to lie - January - to throw - ice - juniper tree - people - yoke - reed - to yoke_
> 
> *CATALAN *[ʒ]/[dʒ]:  jaure - gener - gitar - gel - ginebre - gent - jou - jonc/jonquera - junyir
> *ARAGONESE *[tʃ]: chacer - chinero - chitar - chelo - chinipro - chent - chugo - chungo - chunyir
> *PORTUGUESE *[ʒ]: jazer - janeiro - _jeitar _(nowadays, deitar) - gelo - zimbro - gente - jugo - junco - jungir
> 
> *SPANISH*: yacer - enero - echar - hielo (yelo) - enebro - yente (nowadays, gente) - yugo - yunquera (nowadays, junco/junquera) - uncir​
> It must also be taken into account that the phonology regarding sibilants of pre-17th century Spanish was quite more complex and much more similar to the system found in Catalan, Portuguese or Italian. Written j's in medieval Spanish were pronounced /ʒ/ as they are today in the standards of French, Catalan and Portuguese.
> 
> The current "loch" sound of modern Spanish is a late development. That is, several Old Spanish sounds evolved and merged into one single sound, /x/ (/h/ or /ç/ in Southern/Trans-Atlantic Spanish) in early Modern Spanish (15th to 17th centuries).
> 
> Now this last point is an opinion. Even if *Jaime *is a common name in modern Spanish, my impression is that this is not a genuine Castilian form, but an early import from Aragon, the Aragonese vocalization of the Occitan *Jacme*. The native form in Castilian has to be *Yago*, the logical evolution of Iaco, and its compound form *Santiago*, the name used for the apostle too. *Diego*, from Diago, would have to do with the Galician-Portuguese palatalization of it.



Many thanks for this - it certainly took some time to compose.
The Castilian/Aragonese distinction is helpful. The Société Française d'Onomastique claims Jame and James as "regional forms" (without specifying which region(s)) - and we know that James I was born at Montpellier. So it appears that we may be honing in on this.


----------



## Alturlie

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Modern Portuguese has either Diogo or - especially in Brazil - Thiago.
> 
> 
> 
> For all I know, Chaim is not a classical - or even extravagant - Biblical name, which leads us to the question: why the heck would a Christian ruler want to give his son a Jewish name of no Biblical dignity?



I wonder in what sense you pose the question? Is this tantamount to being dismissive or is this asking a question seeking an answer? IF the former, not helpful - and you display a rather narrow vision of what YOU mean by "Christian". If the latter, well we know that James's Father was sympathetic to the Cathars and that there were substantial and influential Jewish populations both in Zaragoza and Montpellier. It is just this question posed openly and genuinely which is one of those I was/am posing and in this context I hope to learn more about the household - if an expert can be found.


----------



## Alturlie

Olaszinhok said:


> Regarding Italian, it has
> *Giacomo
> Giacobbe* and
> *Jacopo* pronounced y*a*copo.
> All these names have the same root.




Exactly so. The same ROOT. But I ask the question about what we should understand from the nuances of difference and I offer the possibility that the "-mo" may represent a pet form essentially meaning "my" - this nuance presumably now long since lost.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> The Société Française d'Onomastique claims Jame and James as "regional forms" (without specifying which region(s)) - and we know that James I was born at Montpellier. So it appears that we may be honing in on this.


"Regional" certainly refers to regions of modern France. At the time Catalan and Occitan were still pretty much the same thing. In Languedoc-Roussillion of the time French did not play any role, yet.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> "Regional" certainly refers to regions of modern France. At the time Catalan and Occitan were still pretty much the same thing. In Languedoc-Roussillion of the time French did not play any role, yet.



Unfortunately my information was terse - even perfunctory. I presume "regions of what is modern France today" was meant and in practice this means the area controlled or under the influence of Aragon around 1200AD - but up to and including Montpellier and its surroundings.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> Exactly so. The same ROOT. But I ask the question about what we should understand from the nuances of difference and I offer the possibility that the "-mo" may represent a pet form essentially meaning "my" - this nuance presumably now long since lost.


There are many explanations for the different forms. Besides them being simple phonetic variants, an plausible explanation is that the forms with m are influenced by Byzantine Greek. The reason for this assumption is that in same late Latin texts both forms exist, the _Iacobus_ for the _Jacob_ of the Old Testament and _Iacomus_ for the apostle _Jacob_ of the New Testament. See the already aforementioned book by Lidia Becker.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> practice this means the area controlled or under the influence of Aragon around 1200AD - but up to and including Montpellier and its surroundings.


It is simply Occitan, the native language. Don't forget that French started to be spoken by the general public in Languedoc-Roussillion only in the 19th century. Before that, it was only an administrative and learned language. In the 13th century, French was not spoken at all in the area.

Here is a map of the main historical languages/language groups spoken in the regions of modern France. The Romance ones being French (yellow), Occitan (red) and Franco-Provençal (blue).


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> It is simply Occitan, the native language. Don't forget that French started to be spoken by the general public in Languedoc-Roussillion only in the 19th century. Before that, it was only an administrative and learned language. In the 13th century, French was not spoken at all in the area.
> 
> Here is a map of the main historical languages/language groups spoken in the regions of modern France. The Romance ones being French (yellow), Occitan (red) and Franco-Provençal (blue).



Thanks for this - interesting stuff. But the map showing the kingdom of Aragon and its area of influence was a good deal more complicated than this and given that the focus of interest (regarding James - perhaps not Jacomus as such) is on that time when Occitan was not just one monolithic bloc the details may be of substantial importance.

In other words it is not clear to me whether or not it may be important to distinguish Occitan from Aragonese - and just how different Catalan may have been at that time is also a problem.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> and given that the focus of interest (regarding James - perhaps not Jacomus as such) is on that time when Occitan was not just one monolithic bloc the details may be of substantial importance.


Yes, but not that important. Catalan and Aragonese were a connected dialect continuum with Occitan, especially Languedocian* Occitan, of which we are talking here. Of course there are always dialects, like Gallowa Scots is different from Lothian Scots.

On the other hand, this continuum was very clearly separated from Castilian and Galician dialects. And this was what Penyafort referred to here:


Penyafort said:


> Now this last point is an opinion. Even if *Jaime *is a common name in modern Spanish, my impression is that this is not a genuine Castilian form, but an early import from Aragon, the Aragonese vocalization of the Occitan *Jacme*. The native form in Castilian has to be *Yago*, the logical evolution of Iaco, and its compound form *Santiago*, the name used for the apostle too. *Diego*, from Diago, would have to do with the Galician-Portuguese palatalization of it.


_______________________________________
*_Until the 19th century, Languedoc was Occitan and Roussillon Catalan speaking._


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> Yes, but not that important. Catalan and Aragonese were a connected dialect continuum with Occitan, especially Languedocian* Occitan, of which we are talking here. Of course there are always dialects, like Gallowa Scots is different from Lothian Scots.
> 
> On the other hand, this continuum was very clearly separated from Castilian and Galician dialects. And this was what Penyafort referred to here:
> 
> _______________________________________
> *_Until the 19th century, Languedoc was Occitan and Roussillon Catalan speaking._



Excellent.... Penyafort's contribution steers us helpfully. We can set aside Castillian (I had always assumed this anyway). I think Diego/Diago does not matter - whether or not (given the various comments above) it is actually another corruption of Jacov. 

Instead we need to focus on Aragonese and Occitan - discriminating between these two. We have James I born 1208 - but is there an extant example of Jacme dating from before (I think it would need to be substantially before) this time? I know this form is widely referred to but to me it would be easier to see this as a scribal error/misreading. There is still the problem of WHY James I was so named - look back in his pedigree and there is no reason jumping out.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> I know this form is widely referred to but to me it would be easier to see this as a scribal error/misreading.


it would only be so because it disturbs you conviction that the association of _Jaime _with _Iacomos _is wrong. But apart from your dislike of the idea, we have so far no reason to assume it is wrong.

Becker dates the first occurrence of the spelling _Iacme _in any language to the 11th century (with a word of caution that this dating assumes that there is no intervention of later copyist) and the development in Spanish as_ Jácomus > Jacome > Jacme > Jaime_. (Link)

At any rate, the various attested spellings without _c_ are younger then those with _c_.



Alturlie said:


> There is still the problem of WHY James I was so named - look back in his pedigree and there is no reason jumping out


Named how? I am a bit lost. _James, Jaime, Jamme, Jammes_ or_ Jacme_? And why is the name of that king so pivotal for your case?


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> it would only be so because it disturbs you conviction that the association of _Jaime _with _Iacomos _is wrong. But apart from your dislike of the idea, we have so far no reason to assume it is wrong.
> 
> Becker dates the first occurrence of the spelling _Iacme _in any language to the 11th century (with a word of caution that this dating assumes that there is no intervention of later copyist) and the development in Spanish as_ Jácomus > Jacome > Jacme > Jaime_. (Link)
> 
> At any rate, the various attested spellings without _c_ are younger then those with _c_.
> 
> 
> Named how? I am a bit lost. _James, Jaime, Jamme, Jammes_ or_ Jacme_? And why is the name of that king so pivotal for your case?



I accept that James is universally asserted to be a form of Jacob, but while the evidence adduced does show that this is feasible, it is weak and far from convincing. Although I present the case (for James from Chaim) strongly, this is not because I am actually committed to it but rather to test it as robustly as possible. If my proposition is to be credible I need to discover a plausible scenario for what would be the conflation.

The evidence presented here has been contradictory - so, for example the assertion that in the Bible "Jacomus" is used in the New Testament in contradistinction to Jacobus in the Old Testament does not match eg the Wessex Bible of the late 1100s. So as a bald statement it is simply untrue - and so on with a few other items noted above. Too many people have fallen back on "well known facts" unquestioningly - avoiding the precision necessary to make progress.

Underlying this my main interest is in how the name James came to Scotland. [It will probably be too tedious to set out the nature of this interest here.] It seems to have appeared _ex nihilo_ and for me the timescale requires that James Stewart was born and named BEFORE his father went on pilgrimage to Compostela - which he is supposed to have done. Not only that but the circumstances of James Stewart's birth may inform the birthdate which is variously estimated between 1243 and 1260. When I cast around I can only find one person of real importance named James antedating James Stewart's birth - and that is James I king of Aragon - and so I hypothesise a link of the nature to dispose Alexander Stewart to call his son James. Unless, that is, it can be shown that the form "James" was already widely current elsewhere at that time. But again such evidence as there is seems to localise the form James to greater Aragon.

When I examine James I of Aragon I find that there is no James or Jacob or any variant of any of these in his family tree going back as far as material readily available on the internet will allow and to me this then poses quite a question - why was James I so called? I entered this forum hoping that someone would have knowledge which might bear on this but so far no. I thank you for the link you posted to two examples of Jacme - so I accept that this was a real name, albeit I am still not clear when and where this was used. However I see nothing more than assumption and assertion that this links to James &c. Conversely I see that there were substantial well regarded Jewish communities both in Zaragoza and in Montpellier. It is not clear that James I's father had any particular regard for St James the Great - on the contrary he was on the side of the Cathars RATHER THAN the Popes. And, so far as I can see, he was no persecutor of the Jews living under his rule.

So the problem remains.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> Underlying this my main interest is in how the name James came to Scotland.


As far as Scots is concerned, one of the two national languages of Scotland, that is very easy: Via Middle English or directly from Anglo-French and to Middle English/Anglo-French from Old French and to Old French from Occitan. There can't be any doubt about it. And as far as written evidence goes back, _Sant Jacme_ has always been the Occitan name of the Apostle Jacob and the path from the attested late Latin _Sanctus Jacomus_ to _Sant Jacme_ is straight forward. That's basically it.

As far as Gaelic is concerned, the name is _Seumas _(or _Séamas _in Irish). I can't voice an opinion. It looks like an adaptation of _James_, but I can be totally wrong. It could also be a native name that has been identified with _James _because of the similarity between the two.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> As far as Scots is concerned, one of the two national languages of Scotland, that is very easy: Via Middle English or directly from Anglo-French and to Middle English/Anglo-French from Old French and to Old French from Occitan. There can't be any doubt about it. And as far as written evidence goes back, _Sant Jacme_ has always been the Occitan name of the Apostle Jacob and the path from the attested late Latin _Sanctus Jacomus_ to _Sant Jacme_ is straight forward. That's basically it.
> 
> As far as Gaelic is concerned, the name is _Seumas _(or _Séamas _in Irish). I can't voice an opinion. It looks like an adaptation of _James_, but I can be totally wrong. It could also be a native name that has been identified with _James _because of the similarity between the two.



Thank you but no... you miss my point entirely. 
I don't mean the linguistic route. I mean the personal route. The name must have arrived through an individual.
You refer to "Sant Jacme". What is the earliest Occitan date you have for this (understanding that it could go back farther than extant records allow)?
What is the earliest Occitan date for Jaime/Jame/James?

Ironically you say it is very easy - but then you say "or" - in other words it is all up in the air, so not easy at all!
Sorry, but clearly "always" is just not correct. Not to be silly about it, but it cannot have been BC or even before c30AD.. indeed not before the conversion of at least some Occitans to Roman Christianity (I don't know the date for this).


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> you miss my point entirely.
> I don't mean the linguistic route. I mean the personal route.


The route is religion, the name of the apostle.


Alturlie said:


> What is the earliest Occitan date for Jaime/Jame/James?


I answered that in #105.


Alturlie said:


> Ironically you say it is very easy - but then you say "or" - in other words it is all up in the air, so not easy at all!


Scots has borrowed directly from Anglo-French but also indirectly via Middle English. That makes no material difference.



Alturlie said:


> Sorry, but clearly "always" is just not correct. Not to be silly about it, but it cannot have been BC or even before c30AD.. indeed not before the conversion of at least some Occitans to Roman Christianity (I don't know the date for this).


You have to read more carefully. I wrote: _And as far as written evidence goes back, Sant Jacme has always been the Occitan name of the Apostle Jacob._


----------



## Alturlie

Sorry.... I have not got my head round dissecting the parts.

1. "... the name of the Apostle". Sorry - that is not the point. Even if I were to accept this there is the question of the circumstances (date, reason, place etc.) of the first arrival of the form "James" into (a) England and (b) Scotland

2. re#105. Sorry I do not read German at all and so am reluctant to be confident about not missing nuance. Am I right in understanding 1115 someone called Jacomus alias Gaime? What is Halbinsel? What is NZ? I would  very much like to follow this up - for it looks as if this could be the source of what I would see as the conflation and actually demonstrates my point - especially as in this case Gaime is NOT through the supposedly intermediary 'Jacme'.

3. I am not willing to write off what you say makes no material difference because for this element of my searching I am looking for the individuals rather than the linguistics.

4. No..... how far back does this written evidence go?


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> It seems to have appeared _ex nihilo_ and for me the timescale requires that James Stewart was born and named BEFORE his father went on pilgrimage to Compostela - which he is supposed to have done. Not only that but the circumstances of James Stewart's birth may inform the birthdate which is variously estimated between 1243 and 1260. When I cast around I can only find one person of real importance named James antedating James Stewart's birth - and that is James I king of Aragon - and so I hypothesise a link of the nature to dispose Alexander Stewart to call his son James. Unless, that is, it can be shown that the form "James" was already widely current elsewhere at that time. But again such evidence as there is seems to localise the form James to greater Aragon.


Two things to remember that might help direct your research:

The first thing one would do it to find out what the rendition of name was in contemporary documents. _James, 5th High Steward of Scotland_ is obviously modern and may be completely meaningless.

You are aware that the title and office of a High Steward of Scotland is Norman nobility and that most titles created under Norman rule were given to a vassal from the French mainland? Walter FitzAlan was described as culturally Norman and by blood Breton. If that mean Brittany or Wales or Cornwall I don't know. Wikipedia says Brittany but Wikipedia information has always to be taken with a pinch of salt. Anyhow, "culturally Norman" is what matters.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> Sorry - that is not the point


Yes it is. There is a reason Christian names are called Christian names. There are shortenings of Christian names that apply only to derived personal names. But names that are actually used for saints will also become Christian names for people.


Alturlie said:


> re#105


She says the form Jacme is attested as of the 11th century in the "NO", which I read as meaning North-East. With the usual qualification about copyists as such early documents have only survived as copies.


Alturlie said:


> how far back does this written evidence go?


Before the 11th century it gets very thin in terms of actual documents in most any Romance language. I explained why.



Alturlie said:


> 3. I am not willing to write off what you say makes no material difference because for this element of my searching I am looking for the individuals rather than the linguistics.


If your prime interest is the High Steward James, then I would look at Anglo-French directly as that was the language spoken by the Norman nobility of the era.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> Two things to remember that might help direct your research:
> 
> The first thing one would do it to find out what the rendition of name was in contemporary documents. _James, 5th High Steward of Scotland_ is obviously modern and may be completely meaningless.
> 
> You are aware that the title and office of a High Steward of Scotland is Norman nobility and that most titles created under Norman rule were given to a vassal from the French mainland? Walter FitzAlan was described as culturally Norman and by blood Breton. If that mean Brittany or Wales or Cornwall I don't know. Wikipedia says Brittany but Wikipedia information has always to be taken with a pinch of salt. Anyhow, "culturally Norman" is what matters.




Yes... your first point is well made. It is possible (because I don't know) that the form 'James' is anachronistic. I am making enquiries to see if we can pin down what his mother would have called him!

Regarding "High Steward of Scotland" this was part of the feudalisation process really started by King David I. The Stewart ancestors did indeed come from Brittany (I think originally from Roman Britain then fleeing in the face of Anglo-Saxon take over). Walter, Alan and Walter come from before they came to Scotland, Alexander can be seen as a tribute to Scottish kings of that name - but James is a bolt out of the blue, which is why it deserves explanation.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> Yes it is. There is a reason Christian names are called Christian names. There are shortenings of Christian names that apply only to derived personal names. But names that are actually used for saints will also become Christian names for people.



Of course what you write here is true - but it is NOT the point. The point is why suddenly, apparently out of nowhere and sometime between 1243 and 1252, Alexander Stewart decided to call his son James when, it seems, no-one in Scotland had ever done that before. If you follow your logic about saints he already had hundreds to choose from - so you are still left with the question: why select that one?


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> Of course what you write here is true - but it is NOT the point. The point is why suddenly, apparently out of nowhere and sometime between 1243 and 1252, Alexander Stewart decided to call his son James when, it seems, no-one in Scotland had ever done that before. If you follow your logic about saints he already had hundreds to choose from - so you are still left with the question: why select that one?


If your question is about the form of the name (i.e. from Catalan/Occitan), then, as I said, you should first establish the correct historical form of this particular person's name otherwise you risk following a red herring.

If your question is about why his father chose to name him after the Apostle, I would ask back Why not? It is a decent Christian name and was popular because of the pilgrimage route. But that question would carry us too far away from the topic of this thread


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> If your question is about the form of the name (i.e. from Catalan/Occitan), then, as I said, you should first establish the correct historical form of this particular person's name otherwise you risk following a red herring.
> 
> If your question is about why his father chose to name him after the Apostle, I would ask back Why not? It is a decent Christian name and was popular because of the pilgrimage route. But that question would carry us too far away from the topic of this thread



In this period names were not chosen at random or whimsically. There must be a specific reason why James Stewart was so named.

The earliest example I had seen was  King James I of Aragon - but now you have kindly drawn my attention to the Jacobus aiias Giame dating to 1115 (if I have understood this correctly). I accept that Jacomus comes from Jacobus - and for these purposes probably it does not matter whether this is simple linguistic evolution or a pet form (though I would have thought that this is of the essence of the thread). However the "Jacobus alias Giame" rather goes against the idea of the form Jacme being intermediate. You demonstrated that Jacme is recorded, but I think that in one case the evidence you cite suggests that someone was confused between Jacme and Jaime.

In short I agree/accept that there is a sequence Jacobus =>Jacomus => Jacme.
Parallel to this there is Giame/Jaime etc. and that there has been an elision dating to the early 1100s.
Let us keep an open mind as to the nature of this elision.

I would very much like to know more about the Jacobus als Giame referred to


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> In this period names were not chosen at random or whimsically. There must be a specific reason why James Stewart was so named.


You are still ignoring the question that must be answered first: What was his *actual, historical *name? If you read him called "James" in a modern history book, that is next to meaningless. Medieval rulers' names are represented by what is considered to be the modern equivalents. In an English history book he is called James, in a French history book Jacques and in a German history book Jakob. This is also true for Latin texts  (and most document of the time where). E.g. King James  (VI of Scotland and I of England) was called Jacobus in contemporary inscriptions.





.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> You are still ignoring the question that must be answered first: What was his *actual, historical *name? If you read him called "James" in a modern history book, that is next to meaningless. Medieval rulers' names are represented by what is considered to be the modern equivalents. In an English history book he is called James, in a French history book Jacques and in a German history book Jakob. This is also true for Latin texts  (and most document of the time where). E.g. King James  (VI of Scotland and I of England) was called Jacobus in contemporary inscriptions.



No, I am not ignoring it. Your point was well made and as I said, I am making enquiries.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> No, I am not ignoring it. Your point was well made and as I said, I am making enquiries.


Good luck and keep us informed.


----------



## sumelic

berndf said:


> Yes, in front of back vowels. That is exactly what he said:



The "linguistics of Spanish" page does not seem to treat "a" as a back vowel, but as a non-back vowel: it gives the example of "yace" from Latin iacet/jacet.


----------



## berndf

sumelic said:


> The "linguistics of Spanish" page does not seem to treat "a" as a back vowel, but as a non-back vowel: it gives the example of "yace" from Latin iacet/jacet.


The explanation carries on:


Penyafort said:


> In Spanish, reductions took place early and were much more generalized than in all other languages, turning them into y- /j/ or even dropping:
> 
> *LATIN*: JACERE - JANUARIU (*JENUARIU) - JACTARE (*JECTARE) - GELU - *JENIPERU/*ZINIPERU - GENTE - JUGU - JUNCU/JUNCARIA - JUNGERE
> _English: to lie - January - to throw - ice - juniper tree - people - yoke - reed - to yoke_
> 
> *CATALAN *[ʒ]/[dʒ]: jaure - gener - gitar - gel - ginebre - gent - jou - jonc/jonquera - junyir
> *ARAGONESE *[tʃ]: chacer - chinero - chitar - chelo - chinipro - chent - chugo - chungo - chunyir
> *PORTUGUESE *[ʒ]: jazer - janeiro - _jeitar _(nowadays, deitar) - gelo - zimbro - gente - jugo - junco - jungir
> 
> *SPANISH*: yacer - enero - echar - hielo (yelo) - enebro - yente (nowadays, gente) - yugo - yunquera (nowadays, junco/junquera) - uncir


----------



## Penyafort

Regarding written attestations of Jacme and Jaume in Catalan:

In the Computerised Corpus of Old Catalan [cica.cat], *Jacme *has over 3,800 occurrences between 1200 and 1600 in Catalan texts of all genres (with a higher incidence in court books and legal documents).

*Jaume*, the general form today, is attested slightly over 1,300 times, with a higher incidence in letters and ledgers.

In my view, both forms coexisted in Old Catalan, but probably Jacme was preferred as the most formal one in writings.

The oldest attestations in the corpus refer to four occurrences in a 1230 _carta de franquesa_ in which rights were granted by James I to those who would inhabit the new Kingdom of Majorca, conquered by the Catalans one year before (1229). Three of the occurrences are about the King himself, but one is about one of the many witnesses, a certain Jacme from Cervera.

_Senyal d' en *Jacme *per la gràtia de Déu rey d' Aragó e del regne de Malorq[ue]s e comte de Barcelona e se[n]yor de Montpesler. 
D' assò són testimonis lo sényer en Nono Sans; lo sényer en P[ere] Cornel, alferiç del senyor rey, en B[ere]n[guer], bisbe de Barcelona; en Ponç Huc, compte 
d' Empúries n' Exemèn d' Urrea en Guillem, bisbe de Gerona; en Ffarrer de Sent Martí, tenentloch del senyor en Ladró; en Ffarrer, pebordre de Tarragona; 
en Guillem de Moncada, vesco[m]te de Biarn; en Fferran P[ere] de Pina; en Ponç, artiach[e] de Barch[e]llona; en Guillem de Moncada, fil d' en Ramon de 
Moncada; en P[ere] d' Alcalà en P[ere] de Centelles, sacrista de Barcellona; en Ramo[n] B[ere]n[guer] d' Àger n' Asalt de Godal; en Guillem de Mongrí, sacrista de Gerona; en Bernat de S[an]c[t]a Eugènia; en P[ere] de Pomar; e frare B[er]n[at] de Campanes, tene[n]tloch del maestre del Temple; en Gilabert de Cruyles; en Rodrigo Xemeniç Luçià; frare Folch de Fulalquer, maest[re] del Espital; *en Jacme de Cervera*; en P. Massa._

(Ensign of *James*, by the grace of God *King of Aragon*, of the Kingdom of the Majorcas, Count of Barcelona and Lord of Montpellier.
Witnesses of this are lord Nono Sans, lord Pere Cornel..........
......friar Folch de Fulalquer, master of the Kights Hospitaller; *Jacme of Cervera*; P. Massa. ...........
​As for the first occurrences of *Jacme *in the Diachronical Corpus of Spanish, they are of texts in the 1260s regarding Navarrese and Murcian documents, two kindgoms related to Aragon and Aragonese at the time.

The first of *Jayme *are in the Vidal Mayor, the important code of laws written about 1250 in Aragonese by the bishop of Huesca by order of King James I.


----------



## Alturlie

Here is a potential spanner in your works.....!

The name "Jacimus" appears in the works of Josephus (his autobiography Para 11, see, for example http://www.ultimatebiblereferencelibrary.com/Complete_Works_of_Josephus.pdf)

Whatever else this does, surely it scuppers the idea that the mutation from "b" to "m" was a mediaeval and European invention.
It is far easier to suppose Jacme from Jacimus than from Jacob.

All along I have accepted that at some stage at least two names have become conflated. Above there is the dispute about Iago (and hence potentially three names), so now it would appear that there are four separate names in the mix.

The idea of singular linearity is surely in tatters.....


----------



## berndf

_Jacimus _is a Latinisation of אליקום. There is no _b>m_ shift involved anywhere. The derivation is _Elyaqim > Jacim_+Latin 2nd declension ending.

אליקום was a Kohen Gadol of the Maccabean era and is a very unimportant figure in Christianity. It is extremely far fetched to think that his name should be conflated with that of Jacob.


----------



## Alturlie

My general point (following the excellent UK TV series by Simon Sebag Montefiore) was that Jews remained and were far more influential than many have supposed. 

So I am not suggesting a jump from 1st Century to 1000++ years later, but rather that there were Jews about with the full range of Jewish names and that some Christians with their usual arrogant disregard of nuance took these names to be interchangeable.... In view of this potential chaos what I do NOT have is an alternative 'narrative'.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> My general point (following the excellent UK TV series by Simon Sebag Montefiore) was that Jews remained and were far more influential than many have supposed.
> 
> So I am not suggesting a jump from 1st Century to 1000++ years later, but rather that there were Jews about with the full range of Jewish names and that some Christians with their usual arrogant disregard of nuance took these names to be interchangeable.... In view of this potential chaos what I do NOT have is an alternative 'narrative'.


אליקום is a totally unimportant figure. In Christianity he plays no role and it is but an awkward footnote in Jewish history. There is no plausible way how this persons name should be conflated with the name of one of the most revered persons in both religions. Pure superficial similarity of names that occur in completely different contexts and times without any connection is very unconvincing reasoning.

I am really not sure why you so hostile against the exchange of _b_ and _m_. Nasalisation as well as the inverse shift, de-nasalisation, is a very common phonological process and it makes complete sense here. VL/Proto-Romance names are usually derived from the accusative form the noun/name, in this case _Iacobum_. The classical pronunciation of this /jako:bʊ̃/ and, via /jako:mʊ̃/, /jacomo/ is a very straight forward VL/Proto-Romance outcome (_ʊ̃_ de-nasalised in VL and then merged with _ō_ to _o_).


----------



## Alturlie

Sorry Bernd, you miss the point altogether. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Jacimus whom Josephus mentions is important or that it is "his" name which descends through the generations. But the fact is that there was a Jew at that time called that name. There is no good reason to say that there never was another Jew of the same name ever again. 

So in the early middle ages in the area around the Pyrenees it is likely that there were people called Jacob and Jaime and Jacimus (or something close) and Iago (or its antecedent) all coexisting.

This means that it is unreasonable to propose as unquestionable a single source for a cluster of names including Iago, Diego, Giacomo, Jaume, Jacme and James with no element of proof, but only assertion about the possibility of mutations.


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> There is no good reason to say that there never was another Jew of the same name ever again.


The argument pattern "XYZ is true/probable/plausible because you can't prove the opposite" is rightfully frowned upon in science.



Alturlie said:


> This means that it is unreasonable to propose as unquestionable a single source for a cluster of names including Iago, Diego, Giacomo, Jaume, Jacme and James with no element of proof, but only assertion about the possibility of mutations.


The elephant in the room is that they all mean _Jacob_ as far back as there are attestations. The main tool of etymological reasoning is regular development patterns that are supported by many examples. The derivation if _Giacomo_ from _Iacobum_ is completely regular in Italian and the only assumption in addition to text book changes you need is /bʊ̃/>/mʊ̃/, which is phonologically plausible. It is admittedly an ad hoc assumption but if you think this is wrong, you need a bit more than an unsubstantiated allegation about "Christians with their usual arrogant disregard of nuance" to push the elephant out of the room.


----------



## Alturlie

I don't have a particular problem with Giacobo => Giacomo, although as I have suggested before I think it likely NOT a mutation, but rather a contracted pet form which I would hypothesise as Giaco(bo)mo as it were. [There are many pet forms which have become regular names, much to my own disapproval (I am all in favour of pet forms, but I think that official names should be real names.]

I think that to suggest that there never was another Jacimus after the one mentioned by Josephus would be huge - and would require some sort of evidence or at least a logical thread.

NB Note the intervention of Cossu above who disputes that Diego has anything to do with Jacob. IF this is correct they do NOT all derive from Jacob.

[You will have worked out from my sllence on the matter that I have made no further progress with identifying how people would have referred to James Stewart or indeed James Douglas before him in the vernacular. I have been busy and pleased to advise that my new book "Arthur: Legend, Logic and Evidence" is now in print.]


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> NB Note the intervention of Cossu above who disputes that Diego has anything to do with Jacob. IF this is correct they do NOT all derive from Jacob.


I grant you that one.

The topic of the thread is _Jacobus > Jacomo_. Only forms that can unproblematically be related to _Jacomo_ do really matter here.


----------



## Alturlie

Penyafort said:


> Regarding written attestations of Jacme and Jaume in Catalan:
> 
> In the Computerised Corpus of Old Catalan [cica.cat], *Jacme *has over 3,800 occurrences between 1200 and 1600 in Catalan texts of all genres (with a higher incidence in court books and legal documents).
> 
> *Jaume*, the general form today, is attested slightly over 1,300 times, with a higher incidence in letters and ledgers.
> 
> In my view, both forms coexisted in Old Catalan, but probably Jacme was preferred as the most formal one in writings.
> 
> The oldest attestations in the corpus refer to four occurrences in a 1230 _carta de franquesa_ in which rights were granted by James I to those who would inhabit the new Kingdom of Majorca, conquered by the Catalans one year before (1229). Three of the occurrences are about the King himself, but one is about one of the many witnesses, a certain Jacme from Cervera.
> 
> _Senyal d' en *Jacme *per la gràtia de Déu rey d' Aragó e del regne de Malorq[ue]s e comte de Barcelona e se[n]yor de Montpesler. _
> _D' assò són testimonis lo sényer en Nono Sans; lo sényer en P[ere] Cornel, alferiç del senyor rey, en B[ere]n[guer], bisbe de Barcelona; en Ponç Huc, compte _
> _d' Empúries n' Exemèn d' Urrea en Guillem, bisbe de Gerona; en Ffarrer de Sent Martí, tenentloch del senyor en Ladró; en Ffarrer, pebordre de Tarragona; _
> _en Guillem de Moncada, vesco[m]te de Biarn; en Fferran P[ere] de Pina; en Ponç, artiach[e] de Barch[e]llona; en Guillem de Moncada, fil d' en Ramon de _
> _Moncada; en P[ere] d' Alcalà en P[ere] de Centelles, sacrista de Barcellona; en Ramo[n] B[ere]n[guer] d' Àger n' Asalt de Godal; en Guillem de Mongrí, sacrista de Gerona; en Bernat de S[an]c[t]a Eugènia; en P[ere] de Pomar; e frare B[er]n[at] de Campanes, tene[n]tloch del maestre del Temple; en Gilabert de Cruyles; en Rodrigo Xemeniç Luçià; frare Folch de Fulalquer, maest[re] del Espital; *en Jacme de Cervera*; en P. Massa._
> 
> (Ensign of *James*, by the grace of God *King of Aragon*, of the Kingdom of the Majorcas, Count of Barcelona and Lord of Montpellier.
> Witnesses of this are lord Nono Sans, lord Pere Cornel..........
> ......friar Folch de Fulalquer, master of the Kights Hospitaller; *Jacme of Cervera*; P. Massa. ...........
> ​As for the first occurrences of *Jacme *in the Diachronical Corpus of Spanish, they are of texts in the 1260s regarding Navarrese and Murcian documents, two kindgoms related to Aragon and Aragonese at the time.
> 
> The first of *Jayme *are in the Vidal Mayor, the important code of laws written about 1250 in Aragonese by the bishop of Huesca by order of King James I.



The form "Jacme" has caused me much puzzlement. Spanish is a lovely flowing language, yet Jacme has a very staccato feel to it. I wondered whether abbreviation might be involved. When paper was expensive many people wrote in a way we are becoming familiar with again via SMS. I see that the quotation you offer is replete with missing letters - implying the way that abbreviation was done (compare this with Scottish texts where eg Alexander would be represented as Alexr, with the r usually superscript).

So I wonder if you think that Jacme was ever a SPOKEN form, if it was ever a real name as such, or whether it was merely a well recognised contraction of eg Jacome?


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> I grant you that one.
> 
> The topic of the thread is _Jacobus > Jacomo_. Only forms that can unproblematically be related to _Jacomo_ do really matter here.



Well I do not doubt that people use Giacomo for Giacobo - but that does not make them right. I was prepared to accept this equation (albeit via a pet form) but now I find myself blindsided by Josephus' Jacimus. With the emphasis on the first syllable the rest is pretty much throwaway and hence I see the  i/o variation as trivial - and so it seems to me that there may indeed have been two parallel forms (one with B and one with M) presumably with different meanings, which have been conflated (probably by Gentiles).


----------



## Penyafort

Alturlie said:


> The form "Jacme" has caused me much puzzlement. Spanish is a lovely flowing language, yet Jacme has a very staccato feel to it. I wondered whether abbreviation might be involved. When paper was expensive many people wrote in a way we are becoming familiar with again via SMS. I see that the quotation you offer is replete with missing letters - implying the way that abbreviation was done (compare this with Scottish texts where eg Alexander would be represented as Alexr, with the r usually superscript).
> 
> So I wonder if you think that Jacme was ever a SPOKEN form, if it was ever a real name as such, or whether it was merely a well recognised contraction of eg Jacome?



But the quotation is not in Spanish, it's in Catalan. Spanish and Italian are 'flowing', as you say, but Catalan, Occitan and French have that 'staccato' feeling you mention (for a Spanish/Italian ear), mainly due to the vowel dropping.

In my opinion, Jacme must have been indeed the original spoken form in the Occitan/Catalan/Aragonese area, although with early vocalization of the -c-. Pronouncing it one way or another could have depended on both the area but also on register or even personal choice, just as happens today in most languages with many words. But hard to know without further study, of course.


----------



## Alturlie

Penyafort said:


> But the quotation is not in Spanish, it's in Catalan. Spanish and Italian are 'flowing', as you say, but Catalan, Occitan and French have that 'staccato' feeling you mention (for a Spanish/Italian ear), mainly due to the vowel dropping.
> 
> In my opinion, Jacme must have been indeed the original spoken form in the Occitan/Catalan/Aragonese area, although with early vocalization of the -c-. Pronouncing it one way or another could have depended on both the area but also on register or even personal choice, just as happens today in most languages with many words. But hard to know without further study, of course.



Interesting stuff.... Is there any reason to suppose that King Jacme was ever actually known as "James" in his lifetime or is this more anachronistic/backwards extrapolation?


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> Interesting stuff.... Is there any reason to suppose that King Jacme was ever actually known as "James" in his lifetime or is this more anachronistic/backwards extrapolation?


As a moderator I have to warn you that you are stretching the topic of this thread. The topic is the _Jacobus>Jacomo_. Further developments like this one can contribute to the topic only in so far as might help to decide which later forms underwent this change. But they are not themselves topic of this thread.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> As a moderator I have to warn you that you are stretching the topic of this thread. The topic is the _Jacobus>Jacomo_. Further developments like this one can contribute to the topic only in so far as might help to decide which later forms underwent this change. But they are not themselves topic of this thread.



Well you are the moderator. If it is axiomatic to this thread that Jacobus => Jacomo is true then I am not sure what is being discussed at all. Is it a matter of trying to date the supposed shift (albeit that it would not necessarily have been simultaneous throughout Europe) - perhaps even identifying a first use? Or is it more a matter of people trying to reassure each other about something they cannot demonstrate?

At the moment from what I can see the Jacov => Jacobus =>Jacomus => Jacme => James line rests on a lot of heavy assertion backed up (if we can call it that) by highly dubious, albeit not impossible, linguistic gymnastics.

As we have seen Jacimus was current in 1st Century Israel/Palestine (ie before the mass export of Jews to Iberia) and so the proposition based as it is on the _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ logical fallacy, falls down also on evidential grounds and one is left with the more sensible problem not of when mutation occurred but rather when conflation occurred (which is an interesting enough problem to follow through on).

A major part of the problem is that many of these names are now represented (apparently) as eg James and it is widely held that the name James not only represents Jacobus but derives from it. Now if James of Aragon was in real life NOT James, but rather Jacme, then we are left with two anterior problems: (i) is Jacme a contraction of Jacimus OR (exclusive OR) of Jacomus? OR is it both because the conflation had occurred already? (ii) When was King Jacme first referred to as King James (apparently not during his lifetime) - and why?

I am still having difficulty with Jacme => Jaime. Some evolutionary elements seem broadly natural - but not this one. That does not rule it out, but would depend upon a specific occasion when such a lurch happened, for a reason which it should be possible to identify. I see Jacobo => Jacomo in the same light, except, as I have suggested, there is a potential explanation in terms of a pet form.

I say that any proposition of Jacobo => Jacomo which pays no attention to Jacimus (even if only to demonstrate why it should be ignored) is too shallow. Any proposition of the longer evolution to James which pays no attention to Haim is similarly weak. Clearly the forms Jacme and Jaume have been used interchangeably, but in order to argue that they are co-derivative (whether from Jacomo or Jacimo) a little bit more than assertion is necessary.

I think that an open minded approach to the whole James/Jaime/Jacme/Jaume problem will have a very useful bearing on supposedly 'upstream' considerations which, as you say, are the central thread.


----------



## Alturlie

In the 1290s King Edward I of England forced all key Scottish Nobles to sign a document swearing their loyalty to him. These documents have become known as the Ragman Rolls. The names can be inspected here:
*ragman Rolls - Index*

I have abstracted from these lists all the people whose given name starts "Ja-" 
[NB many of the letters you see as "f" are in fact "s" - this was a style of writing which persisted until the late 1700s.]

Aurifaber, Jacobus (burgenfis dc Berewico).
Crak, James de (del counte de Selkyrk).
Edenburgh, James de (burgois de Edenburgh).
Freman, Jacob (del counte de Pebbles).
Giffard, James (del counte de Berewyk).
Lindefeye, James de (del counte de Rokefburgh).
Maleuill, Jacobus de (James de Maleuill).
Maleuill, James de (del counte de Aberden).
Neuton, James de (del counte de Edeneburgh).
Ros, Jacobus filius Godefridi de (fenior) ; (James le fiuz Godefrey de Ros, le efnee).
Ros, Jacobus filius Godeffidi de (junior); (James le fiuz Godefrey, le pufnee).
Ros, James de (del counte de Are).
Senefcalli, Dominus Johannes (Domini Jacobi Senefcalli Scocie germanus, miles) ; (Johan Senefechal frere Mon fire James Senefchal Defcoce).
*Senefcallus Scocie, Dominus Jacobus dictus (miles), (James Senefchal Defcoce). *
Torthorald, James de (del counte de Dunfres).
Victie, James (perfone del Eglife de Edenyn, del comte de Forfare).

From this we can see that the name James was reasonably common - some 90 years before the Wycliffe Bible and hence closing the time window quite considerably.
Second we may note that James Stewart (whom I have highlighted in bold) is referred to specifically as James - answering the question posed by Berndf. Indeed there is no-one specified differently in the (Norman French) vernacular (though I would hesitate to assume that everyone listed here as Jacobus was in reality James).
Third we may note the absence of any so-called intermediate form (ie Jacomus/Jacomo/Jacme etc.)

There is a much larger reference: "People of Mediaeval Scotland" http://www.poms.ac.uk/, but every version of "Jacobus" etc, is listed under "James" and only in some cases is the original specified.

It now looks as if the name Jacob(us) may have come to Scotland from Northampton under one of several kings of Scotland (and/or their close relatives) who were Earls of Huntingdon in the approximate period 1115x75. The earliest date seems to be c1166 (for a cleric from Roxburgh - so he could easily have been born in England). 'Native' Scots seem to be significantly later. For the name to appear so widely by this time and without any really famous person having adopted it, we should probably suppose that the full transformation to James was established by 1100 - implying that any transition process must predate this. Given the prevailing culture this leads me to suppose that Jacob or indeed James as a given name was part of the change brought in by the Norman Conquest (1066). This then recasts the problem, for while it is well understood that the Normans mangled many British and Anglo-Saxon names when they came over (Grantham => Graham etc.), their own names seem quite stable.

Under these circumstances it seems to me most likely that the name Jacob as a given name came to Britain from the continent some time after 1066 and well before 1140.

By 1100 one in seven of all boys born in England was called William (or something like that) - a name which did not exist there before 1066. So culture can change catastrophically. It seems that James came in suddenly, but so far the equivalent of King William I has not been identified. In so far as there are any forms which should be regarded as intermediate, they belong on the continent rather than in the British Isles


----------



## Alturlie

Following Berndf's request here is the list with the relevant "f"s replaced.
Actually I am not sure whether or not Aurifaber should be Aurisaber - but fortunately this is of no material consequence in this discussion.


Aurifaber, Jacobus (burgensis dc Berewico).
Crak, James de (del counte de Selkyrk).
Edenburgh, James de (burgois de Edenburgh).
Freman, Jacob (del counte de Pebbles).
Giffard, James (del counte de Berewyk).
Lindeseye, James de (del counte de Rokesburgh).
Maleuill, Jacobus de (James de Maleuill).
Maleuill, James de (del counte de Aberden).
Neuton, James de (del counte de Edeneburgh).
Ros, Jacobus filius Godefridi de (senior) ; (James le fiuz Godefrey de Ros, le esnee).
Ros, Jacobus filius Godeffidi de (junior); (James le fiuz Godefrey, le pusnee).
Ros, James de (del counte de Are).
Senescalli, Dominus Johannes (Domini Jacobi Senescalli Scocie germanus, miles) ; (Johan Senesechal frere Mon sire James Seneschal Descoce).
*Senescallus Scocie, Dominus Jacobus dictus (miles), (James Seneschal Descoce). *
Torthorald, James de (del counte de Dunfres).
Victie, James (perfone del Eglife de Edenyn, del comte de Forfare).

Hope this helps


----------



## Alturlie

I have been revisiting this issue recently.

1. I am delighted by Cossue pointing out that Diego is not the same as Iago. Entirely different derivations and entirely different meanings. This should be an object lesson to so many people - including myself - who slipped into the casual error of conflating them.

2. Sardocan’s intervention - suggesting Jacomus from Joachim is also brilliant. Amongst other things it also accounts for “Jacimus” in Josephus. Jacme is very reasonable derivative. The problem which has remained is why the king of Aragon should have been called “Jacme”.

Now I have the answer: Joachim of Fiore (c1135- 30 March 1202). He was highly influential and his thinking was close to that of the Cathars who still (at that time) dominated the area where he was born. So we may now be confident that Jacme is a derivative of Joachim and nothing to do with Jacob.

We can also see the basis of later confusion as he founded the order of San Giovanni in Fiore - Giovanno being essentially Johannes rather than Joachim - but lay people paying little attention to detail (see 1 above!!) are more than likely to have conflated the two. This could be the basis for the conflation of Jack and John in English - despite the “obvious” similarity of Jack and Jacques (from Jacob).

So... in investigating how “James” came to represent the name “Jacob” we may free and refocus our thinking by setting aside the idea that King James I of Aragon was called James and ignoring Jacme (and Jacome) in the analysis.

3. It looks as if we can tighten the time window:
On the one hand the Wessex Bible (=>1175) retains Jacob. On the other hand I am grateful to Prof. Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh in Glasgow for referring me to 
"?_c_1225  (▸_?a_1200)   _Ancrene Riwle_ (Cleo. C.vi) (1972) 144   Forþi seið seint *iames*. Omne gaudium [etc.]." 
in the Oxford English Dictionary. [Obviously the question marks are problematic but this is nevertheless a not unhelpful starting point.]

Fresh thinking now required, methinks....


----------



## berndf

The elephant in the room is still that _Jaime _or _James _has never ever meant anything else than representing _Jacob _and that _Joachim _is a completely unrelated biblical name. Just seem just to hate the idea that _James _could mean _Jacob _and is infact derived from_ Jacobus _for a reason I fail to comprehend cling to even the weakest straw to reject this idea.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> The elephant in the room is still that _Jaime _or _James _has never ever meant anything else than representing _Jacob _and that _Joachim _is a completely unrelated biblical name. Just seem just to hate the idea that _James _could mean _Jacob _and is infact derived from_ Jacobus _for a reason I fail to comprehend cling to even the weakest straw to reject this idea.


Clearly this has been the understanding since the earlier 1200s. But why? 
The point of my post is that it is NOT via "Jacme" - so the issue of the route is opened up again completely.
Because the route is refuted this means that the "never ever" is now without foundation.
Perhaps a new foundation will be found, perhaps something else. We are in the realm of the "unknown unknowns".


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> The point of my post is that it is NOT via "Jacme" - so the issue of the route is opened up again completely.
> Because the route is refuted this means that the "never ever" is now without foundation.


The only reason I see why it should not be via _Jacme _is because for some reason or another you hate the idea. But that is hardly a refutation.


----------



## Alturlie

berndf said:


> The only reason I see why it should not be via _Jacme _is because for some reason or another you hate the idea. But that is hardly a refutation.


It is true that no-one has ever explained to my satisfaction how the "c" gets lost - and that made the proposition unattractive. But no.... the reason that James does not come via Jacme is that Jacme comes from Joachim rather than Jacob. [And remember that was not even my idea!]


----------



## berndf

Alturlie said:


> the reason that James does not come via Jacme is that Jacme comes from Joachim rather than Jacob.


There is absolutely no reason to assume that.



Alturlie said:


> And remember that was not even my idea


That was a mere question ("No one considered this other possible origin?").


----------



## symposium

What if, simply, since "-mus" is such a common ending for Latin words, people would just say "Jacomus"? Perhaps if they ever heard someone say "Jacopus" most people back then would just have thought: "That must be wrong, probably they meant "Jacomus"... In Italian "Giacomo" was considered the common form of the name, while "Jacopo" was the learned, refined one. Some men named "Giacomo" would change their name to "Jacopo" when they reached a higher social status.


----------



## Penyafort

Alturlie said:


> It is true that no-one has ever explained to my satisfaction how the "c" gets lost - and that made the proposition unattractive.



-c- getting lost when before a consonant is not something to be surprised about for those who know about the Romance languages. Otherwise there'd be people wondering why there is no -c- in the words for eye, milk, night, etc, in all the Romance languages from Lisbon to Paris, when they clearly come from oc'lu, lacte, nocte, etc.


----------



## berndf

Yes, indeed. Elision of _c_ on front of other consonants is an extremely common feature in Romance languages.


----------

