# Origin of the Spanish -ez



## ahvalj

What is the origin of the Spanish onomastic suffix -_ez_? It is absent in the rest of the vocabulary, and in Portuguese it corresponds to -_es_ (_Álvarez_ vs. _Álvares_). I guess, it may come from both -_ensis_ (_aragonés_) and -_iscus _(_francés_), but how has it developed the final -_z_?


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> It is absent in the rest of the vocabulary



Are you sure? 
_vez < vece < vicem_, from Latin _ce, ci_ 
Also from Latin _-itia_, where final _-a_ was lost, for example _niñez, vejez, estupidez, gigantez_.


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> Are you sure?
> _vez < vece < vicem_, from Latin _ce, ci_
> Also from Latin _-itia_, where final _-a_ was lost, for example _niñez, vejez, estupidez, gigantez_.


But which earlier suffix could it be? *-_etius_? *-_ecius_? Did they exist? Also, in both scenarios, mine and yours, why is the stress one syllable back?


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> But which earlier suffix could it be? *-_etius_? *-_ecius_? Did they exist?



First of all, it doesn't come from _ensis_, because it developed in _-es/ese_ in all Romance languages (_inglese, inglês, inglés, anglais_). 



ahvalj said:


> Also, in both scenarios, mine and yours, why is the stress one syllable back?



No, in my examples the stress falls on the last syllable: _niñ*é*z, vej*é*z, estupid*é*z, gigant*é*z_, like in _trist*é*za_ (_trist*é*zza_, in Italian, _trist*é*sse_ in French). 

Wiktionary says it comes from French _esse < itia_, this would explain the absence of the final -a, while _tristeza, beleza_ derive directly from Latin _itia_, retaining the final -a.


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> First of all, it doesn't come from _ensis_, because it developed in _-es/ese_ in all Romance languages (_inglese, inglês, inglés, anglais_).


But -_ez_ is otherwise absent in Spanish anyway (_vejez_ etc. are obviously unrelated for semantic reasons), so the question about its origin remains in any case. I don't understand which early Romance suffix could have regularly produced the unstressed -_ez_. Plus, why does Portuguese have -_es_?


----------



## Nino83

If your question is about patronymics, I think it is the Latin genitive suffix _icius/a_.
In Spanish, Latin _ce, ci_ became _þe, þi_ while in Portuguese became _se, si_.


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> If you question is about patronymics, I think it is the Latin genitive suffix _icius/a_.
> In Spanish, Latin _ce, ci_ became _þe, þi_ while in Portuguese became _se, si_.


Yes, I hadn't thought about -_icius_, thanks. Yet, a question to the Spanish speakers, is there any evidence about the development of this suffix in the old texts? I mean: (1) is -_ez_ the only attested form (e. g. was it -_eç_ in Old Spanish?), (2) how and when did the stress stop from moving to this suffix, (3) what could be the reasons for such a popularity of this suffix, comparing to other Romance idioms?


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> (3) what could be the reasons for such a popularity of this suffix, comparing to other Romance idioms?



About this, I can say that in Italian prevailed the Classical Latin singular genitive, like in _Franceschini, Giovannini, Mattei, Petri_ and the prepositional Vulgar Latin genitive _De Francesco, Di Giovanni, Di Matteo, Di Pietro_.


----------



## ahvalj

An author of the Spanish Wikipedia writes (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernández_(apellido)):
_"En el antiguo Reino de Castilla y en países que fueron sus colonias, principalmente se utilizaba la desinencia -ez, probablemente relacionado con el germánico *-iks". _

Is it a popular hypothesis in Spain? I don't know any Germanc suffix _-iks, _though the surnames like _Fernández>Hernández_ may have been influenced by something like the East Germanic *_Friþunanþ*isk*s_ "Ferdinand's" (which would explain the Spanish stress, by the way).


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> About this, I can say that in Italian prevailed the Classical Latin singular genitive, like in _Franceschini, Giovannini, Mattei, Petri_ and the prepositional Vulgar Latin genitive _De Francesco, Di Giovanni, Di Matteo, Di Pietro_.


That's a surprise. I always thought that the Italian _-i_ in the surnames is the Plural ending (_Franceschini_ = "Francesco's family").


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> _"En el antiguo Reino de Castilla y en países que fueron sus colonias, principalmente se utilizaba la desinencia -ez, probablemente relacionado con el germánico *-iks"._



In the Portuguese wikipedia it is said that: 



> A origem deste sufixo é incerta. Alguns pesquisadores atribuem-na à permanência do genitivo latino -is, com valor de possessão ou pertença, como - por exemplo - em "filius Cæsaris", ou seja, "o filho de César". Outra teoria é que teria origem no genitivo gótico latinizado -rici.



If the Germanic _-iks_ became _-rici_ and then _-ici_ it would have been possible (seeing the general phonetic developement) but I don't know if it is popular. 
It seems that the majority opt for _icius_ or for _is_. 



ahvalj said:


> That's a surprise. I always thought that the Italian _-i_ in the surnames is the Plural ending (_Franceschini_ = "Francesco's family").





> Varie forme cognominali escono in -i, come Danieli, Martini: per lo più plurali riferiti al gruppo familiare, sono in parte anche riflessi di antiche formule di paternità espresse in latino con il genitivo e di origine notarile del tipo Iohannes *filius Petri* e poi Iohannes *Petri* attraverso l’ellissi di un elemento.



http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/patronimici_(Enciclopedia_dell'Italiano)/


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/patronimici_(Enciclopedia_dell'Italiano)/


So does it actually mean that Italian, like Romanian, has partially preserved here the latin Genitive of the 2nd declension? Or is it an originally bookish pattern that became popular? How does an Italian layman perceive this -_i_?


----------



## ahvalj

By the way, if indeed the Italian -_i_ comes from _filius August*i*_, and the Spanish/Portuguese _-ez/-es _from _filius Nerōn*is*_, that would be the same pattern (which may have embraced outcomes of other sources). Then the question remains: "why -_z"_?


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> So does it actually mean that Italian, like Romanian, has partially preserved here the latin Genitive of the 2nd declension? Or is it an originally bookish pattern that became popular? How does an Italian layman perceive this -_i_?



Patronimic were passed down from generation to generation.
Today there's no synthetic genitive in Italian language. 



ahvalj said:


> By the way, if indeed the Italian -_i_ comes from _filius August*i*_, and the Spanish/Portuguese _-ez/-es _from _filius Nerōn*is*_, that would be the same pattern (which may have embraced outcomes of other sources). Then the question remains: "why -_z"_?



This is why I think the _icius_ explanation is more likely.


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> Patronimic were passed down from generation to generation.
> Today there's no synthetic genitive in Italian language.


I understand this. My questions are:
(1) why did _Titus fīlius Vespasiānī_ preserve as _Tito Vespasiani_ (or even emerge at all, since this wasn't a standard Latin way to form family names) in contrast to the disappearance of the Genitive everywhere else in the language;
(2) for a modern Italian, does this -_i_ in his/her surname have any sense — is it perceived as just an ending with no particular meaning?


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> I understand this. My questions are:
> (1) why did _Titus fīlius Vespasiānī_ preserve as _Tito Vespasiani_ (or even emerge at all, since this wasn't a standard Latin way to form family names) in contrast to the disappearance of the Genitive everywhere else in the language;



"*Inizialmente* praenomen e nomen costituivano il nome completo del Romano ed erano seguiti dal patronimico (o indicazione della paternità). Il patronimico consisteva nella parola latina filius (figlio), abbreviata in "f." preceduta dall'abbreviazione del praenomen paterno naturalmente al genitivo. Pertanto un Romano poteva essere noto come M. Antonius M. f. (Marcus Antonius Marci filius) cioè "Marco Antonio figlio di Marco"."

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomastica_romana


"*Altri elementi che completavano* *il nome del cittadino* romano erano *il patronimico* e l’indicazione della tribù di appartenenza. Il patronimico, o formula di filiazione, è solitamente *composto dal prenome paterno abbreviato e dal sostantivo filius/a abbreviato alla sola lettera F o FIL* . Spesso nei nomi degli esponenti della classe nobiliare accanto al prenome del padre erano ricordati anche quelli del nonno o di altri antenati."

http://archeoroma.beniculturali.it/ParoleDiPietra/storia_06onomastica.htm



ahvalj said:


> (2) for a modern Italian, does this -_i_ in his/her surname have any sense — is it perceived as just an ending with no particular meaning?



It doesn't have any sense, it's just an ending.


----------



## merquiades

The theory that I heard repeatedly in Spain in university was what Nino said earlier, that it came from the Latin Genitive -is.  Filius Alvaris = Alvaro's kid.
Castilian developed into -ez:  Martín> Martinez, Ramiro>Ramirez, Pedro>Pérez, Sancho> Sánchez etc.  but Catalan has -is: Martinis, Alvaris, Sanchis, Peris, and Portuguese has -es:  Sanches, Alvares, Ramires.
I often wondered whether the Italian surnames in -i also have his origin. The final -s could have been dropped as elsewhere in this language. Edit:  saw Nino's new post so they are related.
Edit:  I found a full wiki article on the patronímico in Spanish.
During the great sibilant realignment between the fifteen and seventeeth century many words with s, x, z, j shifted pronunciation and some ending in -s moved to -z.


----------



## ahvalj

Yet, why is _Pédrez_ (_Pedris/Pedres_) so rare then (OK, there is _Pérez,_ though why not in a more conservative form)? If _Martinus_ (2nd declension) was able to produce _Martinez_, then we would expect it to be more popular with basic christian names. Also _**Páblez, Juánez?_ It appears that this suffix was originally more specialized, which rather contradicts its origin from the Latin ending.


----------



## merquiades

At one time _Per, Pero_ was more popular than _Pedro_.  _Pedro_ is a reintroduction of a more classical form.  _Juánez_ also _Yáñez_ do indeed exist from _Juan_.  _Páblez_ does not, _Póbez_ comes from _Pablo_.  Perhaps these names were not so common in Medieval times.  We see lots of Castilian names that are infrequent now give rise to the most common names:  Sancho, Gomaro, Ruy, Gonzalo etc.


----------



## ahvalj

Also (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gómez):
_"*Gómez* es un apellido patronímico de origen español y muy común tanto en España como en América. Es de origen godo, apócope de *Gomesco*, que significa hijo de Gome (o Gomo)".

"*González* o Gonzáles, es un apellido oriundo de España. Tiene un origen patronímico y se deriva del nombre propio Gonzalo, muy común durante toda la Edad Media. Su origen es *visigodo*" _(https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/González_(apellido)).

_"*Rodríguez* es un apellido patronímico originario del antiguo reino de León (actual España, donde es uno de los más frecuentes entre su población). Su origen se remonta a la Edad Media, probablemente anterior al siglo XI. Significa hijo de Rodrigo o Rodericus, nombre de origen *germánico*"_ (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodríguez).

It seems, the East Germanic _-isk-_ is a better explanation.


----------



## Cenzontle

> Yet, why is _Pedrez_ (_Pedris/Pedres_) so rare then?


Isn't "Pe'rez" the name you are looking for?
(Sorry, the omega for accent marks isn't working for me today.)
My understanding is that experts are still divided on the origin of "-ez".
I'M on vacation and don't have access to my reference books,
but I'm pretty sure that there are patronymics with c-cedilla in the early manuscripts.


----------



## ahvalj

Thanks everybody for contribution. So, we have three working hypotheses:

(1) The Latin ending -_is_ (the Gen. Sg. of the 3rd declension) — explains the stress;

(2) The Latin suffix -_icius — _explains the _-z;_

(3) The East Germanic suffix -_isk_- — explains the stress.


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> The East Germanic suffix -_isk_- — explains the stress.



And maybe aso the _-z_ *if*, as it is said in the Portuguese wikipedia, it was latinized in _-(r)ici_.


----------



## Cossue

I think that the origin of the Spanish patronymic suffix -ez (and Portuguese -es; Galician -es/z: *Vieites/Vieitez* < Bieites < Benedictici, *Miguéns/Miguez* < Migaeles < Micaelici, *Pais/Paz* < Paaes < Pelagici, *Martís *< Martinici, *Vásquez/Vázquez *< Veasques < Velascici...) is still debated. I've read that it could have been originated in the genitive of names ended in -icus, like for example Rudericus (Rodrigo), but toponyms derived from the genitive of such names are very frequent in Galicia, and the last syllable is always tonic: *Allariz *< Aliarici '(possession of) Aliaric', *Guitiriz *< Uitterici '(possession of) Uittericus', *Mondariz *< Mundarici... According to Menéndez Pidal the suffix has its origin in Iberian, a pre-Latin language of the Mediterranean _Iberian _shores (cf. Boullón Agrelo._ Antroponimia medieval galega_. ISBN 978-3484555129). Given that Celtiberian used a -(i)cum suffix as family name, so Cilurnigum = '(the people who descend from) Cilurnius', I wonder if one can bring both suffixes together somehow.

Anyway, the old suffix that is found in local documentation well before AD 1000 is -ici, for names of the second declension, and mostly -ci for the rest: so Roderigici (> Rodríguez) 'son of Rodrigo', but Munioci (> Muñoz) 'son of Munio', Froilaci ( > Flores) 'Son of Froila' (the genitive form of Munio was Munionis, later Munioni; that of Germanic Froila was Froilanis, later Froilani). A second note is that this suffix is much more used in Castille than in Galicia or Portugal; in the western parts of the peninsula the suffix is found always frequently related to the name of the nobility and it mostly alternate with the use of genitives, and only in the 12th century became really popular.

By the way, the genitive was still productive in Galicia and Portugal in the 8th and 9th centuries, and not only in local charters (cf. the aforementioned book by Boullón Agrelo, and Piel & Kremer _Hispano-gotisches Namenbuch, _ISBN 3-533-02410-5), as we have some clues that at least a part of the local possessor toponymy (usually expressed as a genitive: cf. for example http://ruc.udc.es/bitstream/2183/7581/1/RGF_8_art_4.pdf) was formed in that centuries.

Here is a nice collection of Castillian 10th+ century monastic documentation: Becerro gótico de Cardeña.


----------



## Cossue

East Germanic -_iskz _is found in names and toponymy, as for example *Gondaísque *(Galicia: 43.3N, 7.7167W) < Guandaisco 1128 < *Wandalisci, *Bandalisque *(Asturias), _morisco_/_mourisco _'moor'... I don't think that it is related.


----------



## Cossue

Mmmh. I'm too much used to Galician medieval charters... In Galicia we found this patronymic suffix frequently written as -ici or -ci (Roderigici / Munioci), but in Castille is more like -iz / -z: Roderigiz, Munioz.


----------



## ahvalj

Cossue said:


> by 865 an expedition directed by a Galician nobleman, Vímara Peres (Wimara Petrici)


So, one more evidence towards the _-icius_ origin.


----------



## Cossue

ahvalj said:


> So, one more evidence towards the _-icius_ origin.


Mhhh... Sadly the conquest of Porto by Vímara Peres is, as long as I know, only recorded in the 12th century Chronicon Laurbanense "Era DCCCCVIª [=868 AD] prenditus est portugale ad uimarani petri", although this guy is known also (at least) by another document: a 10th century copy of a charter given in northern Galicia in 867, where he signs "Uimara filius Petri ts."; _Uimara Peres_ or _Petrici _are rather modernized renditions of the name, but in Galicia at that moment genitive formations were used (or not used at all).

I guess that this patronymic suffix -(e)z/-(e)s originated in the east, in Castille, later expanding into the west.


----------



## francisgranada

In Portuguese, the form in _*-iz*_ was also present, e.g. in the manuscript called Auto de Partilhas (1192) we have _Rodrigo Sanchiz_, _Vaasco Suariz_, _Vermuu Ordoniz, Gonsaluu Vermuiz and Martin Periz. _At the end of the text, there is _"Ego Johanes Menendi presbyter notavit_", which seems to suggest that there was a tendency to make difference between the Portuguese (vernacular) and Latin variant of the name (supposing that _Menendi _is the latinized version of _Menendiz_).

I don't know how the _final z_ was then pronounced in Portuguese, but if it had come directly from the Latin genitive _-is_, then I don't see too much reason for writing _z_ instead of _s_ in Portuguese. (In the same text  we find also words like _fa*z*emus, parti*ç*ões_, _ca*s*al_, _de*ss*a,_ which suggests that this _*z*_ did not correspond to the unvoiced _*s*_).

On the other hand in old Spanish manuscripts, besides of _Gomez_, we encounter also _Gomis _and _Gomi_, e.g. in the Documento de Quesos (circa 974) _sopbrino de Gomi _(not in Latin expression, in this case). The contemporaneous/parallel usage of the forms like _Gomi _and _Gomis _seems to support the "genitive theory of Latin origin" (gradually generalizing _-ez<-is_ for all cases), though it does not explain satisfactorily the final _z_ (in spite of the existence of seseo/ceceo in Spanish) ...


----------



## Cossue

francisgranada said:


> In Portuguese, the form in _*-iz*_ was also present


Galician patronymic names which have not been "Castillianized" also show some tendency to end in -is: Frois < Froiliz/Froilez, Martís < Martiniz/Martinez, Pais < Pelagiz/Pelagez... but most prefer the -es ending: Miguéns < Miguelez, Vieites < Benedictez...

On Gomez, that name alternates with Gomiz, Gomessanus, and other forms in early Castillian documents, applied to the same persons. And at least for Galician charters I can't find a genitive _Gomi_, so maybe that Gomi in the _Nodizia de Kesos_ is a hapax?

As a curio, the 12th century _Historia Compostellana_ and some other Galician charters, written in "Church Latin", renders very occasionally the patronymics using Greek suffixes, which for me sounds as if the authors didn't consider that suffix properly Latin: Cresconius Petrides 1154 (Petriz), Furtunius Veremudides 1154 (Veremudiz), Froyla Atanides 1155 (Attaniz), Pelagius Munionides 1156 (Munioz)...


----------



## francisgranada

. .. ..


Cossue said:


> Galician patronymic names which have not been "Castillianized" also show some tendency to end in -is: Frois < Froiliz/Froilez, Martís < Martiniz/Martinez, Pais < Pelagiz/Pelagez... but most prefer the -es ending: Miguéns < Miguelez, Vieites < Benedictez...


Yes, I only wanted to point out that this _*z*_ we can find also in the Portuguese (and, finally, also in  Galician)  spelling (in spite of the "normal" _-s_), i.e. it seems to me that that this final_ z_ might have some relevant phonetic/etymological reason.

Question: Can we speak about  _castillianization_ around the 11th/13th century?


----------



## Cossue

Oops! I misunderstood it  

In any case, for Castillianized I just meant "during the last centuries, in Galicia".


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> ... (2) The Latin suffix -_icius — _explains the _-z ... _


But it doesn't explain the absence (if true ...) of forms like_ *Martinezo (< *Martinicius), Perezo (< *Petricius) etc. _In other words, the genitive like _Martinici_ might derive from _Martinicius,_ but not directly from _Martinus_. Plus, the suffix  _-icius_ already has the sense of provenance, thus a possible genitive in _-ici _seems to me superfluous or improbable, if these family names had to express the idea of "son of  _Martinus_, _Petrus_, etc ...".



Cossue said:


> I've read that it could have been originated in the genitive of names ended in -icus, like for example Rudericus (Rodrigo)


This is also an interesting possibility (we can add it to the Ahvalj's list, post #22), but then why not *_Rodréz_ (< _Ruderici_) instead if _Rodríguez_?

Are there written documents of family names like _Martinicius_/_Martinicus_/_Martinici_ in medieval Latin manuscripts?


----------



## Cossue

francisgranada said:


> Are there written documents of family names like _Martinicius_/_Martinicus_/_Martinici_ in medieval Latin manuscripts?



_Martinici _yes. In early (let's say 10th century and before) medieval documents the suffix is spelled mostly -iz, -ici (later also -is, -it...) for names which would follow the Latin second declension. So:
Petrus, gen. Petri: Petriz/Petrici > mod. Pérez/Peres
(Germanic) Roderigu < Rudericus, gen. Roderici: Roderigiz/Rodericici/Roderigici > mod. Rodríguez/Rodrigues
Martinus, gen. Martini: Martiniz/Martinici > mod. Martínez/Martins/Martís​
But for names which would follow a consonant declension, whichever its origin, the suffix could be either -iz/-ici, more frequently -z/-ci:
(Germanic) Froila, gen. Froilani(s): Froilaz/Froilaci > mod. Galician Frois/Froiz
Munio/Munius, gen. Munioni(s)/Munii: Munioz/Munioci or Muniz/Munici > mod. Muñoz/Muñiz/Munis​
But after consulting some chartularies and collections, I'd would say that in general the* -iz/-z* spelling is way more usual than *-ici/-ci*, at least in older documents.


----------



## Cossue

By the way, the -(i)z suffix is always applied to lenited names: *Rodríguez *< Roderigiz, but no ***Rodrícez* < Rodericici (although that spelling is sometimes used).

Also, *Diéguez *<- Diego < Didacu, but *Díaz *< Didaci, genitive of Didacus.


----------



## ahvalj

It turns out that there had been already a thread for this: Spanish: origin of -ez (in surnames) and the link provided there (Patronímico - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre) suggests a Basque origin of this suffix.


----------



## Penyafort

merquiades said:


> The theory that I heard repeatedly in Spain in university was what Nino said earlier, that it came from the Latin Genitive -is.  Filius Alvaris = Alvaro's kid.
> Castilian developed into -ez:  Martín> Martinez, Ramiro>Ramirez, Pedro>Pérez, Sancho> Sánchez etc.  *but Catalan has -is: Martinis, Alvaris, Sanchis, Peris*, and Portuguese has -es:  Sanches, Alvares, Ramires.



What was common in Catalan was the name in its simple form, sometimes introduced by _de_. This is why Martí, Albert, Sans/Sanz, Marc(h), Pasqual, Pons, Bernat, Fortuny, etc, are relatively common surnames, sometimes even more common than as first names.

The presence of the -is patronymic ending in Catalan does not seem to be native at all, but it was a very old adaptation that took place mainly in Valencia, as it was settled by both Catalans and Aragonese. In Aragon, -iz seems to have been more common ending than -ez, so the Ferrándiz surname (from Ferrando, Aragonese form of Ferdinand) would give Ferrandis in Valencian, Sánchiz or Sanchiz would give Sanxis/Sanxiç, and so on. Same for Eiximenis, Peris, Llopis Gomis, etc.

Even nowadays, the presence of -is in Catalonia is relatively low compared to that in Valencia, where some of them are very common. Yet uncomparable to the omnipresence of -ez in Spanish (or -es in Portuguese).


----------



## ahvalj

Don't you think that the Basque hypothesis indeed explains the stress and the forms in -_oz_?


----------



## jmx

Penyafort said:


> ... the omnipresence of -ez in Spanish


I suppose you mean "the omnipresence of -ez in Spanish-speaking areas".


----------



## Forero

ahvalj said:


> What is the origin of the Spanish onomastic suffix -_ez_? It is absent in the rest of the vocabulary, and in Portuguese it corresponds to -_es_ (_Álvarez_ vs. _Álvares_). I guess, it may come from both -_ensis_ (_aragonés_) and -_iscus _(_francés_), but how has it developed the final -_z_?


Think of _conocer_, _conozco_, _conoce_ (and all those _-ecer_, -_ezco_, _ece_ verbs) from Latin words with _sc_. The pronunciation of the _c_ depended on the sound that followed, but why would the _s_ turn into a _z_?

It seems to have to do with the _c_ that follows.





ahvalj said:


> ...(3) The East Germanic suffix -_isk_- — explains the stress.


If _conosco_ became _conozco_ and _conosce_ became _conoce_, perhaps this -_isk-_ became sometimes _zc_, sometimes _c_ and an _e_ or _i_ dropped off leaving _-z_.

¿*_Friþunanþ*isk*s_ > *_Ferdunándesci _(> *_Ferdinándezce_) > *_Ferdnándece_ > _Fernández_/_Hernández_?


----------



## Penyafort

ahvalj said:


> Don't you think that the Basque hypothesis indeed explains the stress and the forms in -_oz_?



I consider it very likely, both for linguistic and historical reasons, although I wouldn't rule out possible influences or merging with the other theories either.



jmx said:


> I suppose you mean "the omnipresence of -ez in Spanish-speaking areas".



Not necessarily. The chances of finding repeated -ez surnames anywhere in the world where there is a community of people with surnames in Spanish is extremely high. That explains why you can find -ez surnames high in the lists of European countries that are not Spanish-speaking.


----------



## MilyU

ahvalj said:


> What is the origin of the Spanish onomastic suffix -_ez_? It is absent in the rest of the vocabulary, and in Portuguese it corresponds to -_es_ (_Álvarez_ vs. _Álvares_). I guess, it may come from both -_ensis_ (_aragonés_) and -_iscus _(_francés_), but how has it developed the final -_z_?


The suffix_ez means descendant... Example: González, descendant of Gonzalo...it might correspond to the suffix _son in English


----------



## Awwal12

ahvalj said:


> I understand this. My questions are:
> (1) why did _Titus fīlius Vespasiānī_ preserve as _Tito Vespasiani_ (or even emerge at all, since this wasn't a standard Latin way to form family names) in contrast to the disappearance of the Genitive everywhere else in the language


Isn't it basically the same reason why -ov(a/o)/-ev(a/o) are preserved in Russian surnames and toponyms but the original possessive adjectives with that suffix are almost completely lost in Russian?


----------



## symposium

ahvalj said:


> I understand this. My questions are:
> (1) why did _Titus fīlius Vespasiānī_ preserve as _Tito Vespasiani_ (or even emerge at all, since this wasn't a standard Latin way to form family names) in contrast to the disappearance of the Genitive everywhere else in the language


I think it necessary to point out that this use of the genitive in patronymics in Italian doesn't date back to Roman times: Latin was the language of official documents well into the modern age. It's not the Latin of the Romans: it's medieval/Renaissance Latin used in documents that had to have some legal status.


----------



## ahvalj

symposium said:


> I think it necessary to point out that this use of the genitive in patronymics in Italian doesn't date back to Roman times: Latin was the language of official documents well into the modern age. It's not the Latin of the Romans: it's medieval/Renaissance Latin used in documents that had to have some legal status.


Thank you, I didn't think of this scenario. Yet, why is the vast majority of Italian surnames non-latinized then? I'd expect a Latin ending added to a latinized surname. Or is there any attested development of this_ -i_ from originally latinized forms in legal documents to the popular usage?

Wikipedia supports my original assumption that this _-i_ is the Plural ending (Italian name - Wikipedia):


> A large number of Italian surnames end in _i_, due to the medieval Italian habit of identifying families by the name of the ancestors in the plural (which have an _-i_ suffix in Italian). For instance, Filippo from the Ormanno family (_gli Ormanni_) would be called "signor Filippo degli Ormanni" ("Mr. Filippo of the Ormannos"). In time, the middle possessive portion ("of the") was dropped, but surnames became permanently pluralized and never referred to in the singular, even for a single person. Filippo Ormanno would therefore be known as Filippo Ormanni.


----------



## symposium

You want to know why they would only stick a final -i to the name to make it genitive and not translate the whole name into Latin? I haven't got that knowledge, but I believe it was partly due to the fact that if someone was known as "Lorenzo Del Rosso" public officials writing a document would only slightly change the name as to make it fit into a Latin text. Completely altering a person's name was taking things too far. Thus our Lorenzo would simply become "Laurentius Rossi". Also remember that most public officials in modern times wrote a very poor and Italianized Latin. It was just Italian with a few Latin suffixes or very well-known Latin words in it.


----------



## symposium

I find the theory that Italian family names are "plural" weak. First of all, it doesn't explain where those plural names came from in the first place. Take that Wikipedia example "Filippo degli Ormanni": where does "Ormanni" come from? Is that a Christian name, "Ormanno"? Then again, "Ormanni" would be the genitive of a singular male name. And how would you explain names that mean "hunchback", "one-eyed", "deaf"? Are we to believe that there were whole families, even generations of hunchback, one-eyed, deaf people? It's much more sensible to think that those were the physical characteristics of just one person, i.e., the father of whomever it was.


----------



## symposium

Many Italian surnames come, like the Spanish ones, from Christian names: Stefani, Bortoli, Benedetti. They obviously  mean (son) of Stefano, of Bortolo, of Benedetto. But like your "Degli Ormanni" exemple, there are also many De Stefani, De Bortolo, De Benedetti, which is a plural and means "of the Stefanis" etc. That can easily be explain: once "Stefani" (of Stefano) became the surname of not just one person but a whole family (Marco, Maria, Giovanni Stefani), they were known as the Stefanis, and so someone who in previous times would have been called Marco (figlio di) Stefano or Marco Stefani, now he could be called Marco Degli Stefani (De' Stefani). Or Degli Ormanni, or De' Gobbi etc.


----------



## ahvalj

Assuming the Latin Wikipedia is a reliable source, let's have a look on how Italian educated people latinized their names:

_-i_ perceived as the Latin Genitive Singular ending of the 2nd declension:

_Galileo Galilei → Galilaeus Galilaei_ (Galilaeus Galilaei - Vicipaedia; https://img.ma-shops.com/henzen/pic/combined22337.jpg)
_Giulio Cesare Vanini → Julius Caesar Vanini_ (Iulius Caesar Vanini - Vicipaedia), Ablative Singular _Vanino_ (Amphitheatrum aeternae providentiae divino-magicum, Christiano-physicum, nec non astrologo-catholicum)
_-i_ perceived as the Latin suffix of relational adjectives:

_Pietro Pomponazzi → Petrus Pomponatius_ (Petrus Pomponatius - Vicipaedia; https://pictures.abebooks.com/BUECHERETAGE/18146722484.jpg)
_Dante Alighieri → Dantes Alagherius~Aligherius_ (Dantes Alagherius - Vicipaedia; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Dante_tomb.jpg; https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectionimages/AN00217/AN00217842_001_l.jpg)
_Michelangelo Buonarroti → Michael Angelus Bonarotius_ (Michael Angelus Bonarotius - Vicipaedia; F. Serræ Synonymorum, Epithetorum et Phrasium ... nec non historiarum ... regnorum ... aliorumque nominum propriorum Apparatus selectissimus ... in hac novissima editione locupletatus)

_Benedetto Varchi → Benedictus Varchius_ (Benedictus Varchius - Vicipaedia; Museum Mazzuchellianum, Seu Numismata Virorum Doctrina Praestantium, Quae Apud Jo. Mariam Comitem Mazzuchellum Brixiae Servantur A Petro Antonio De Comitibus Gaetanis Brixiano Presbytero, Et Patritio Romano Edita, Atque Illustrata. Accedit Versio Italica Studio Equitis Cosimi Mei Elaborata)

_Ludovico Antonio Muratori → Ludovicus Antonius Muratorius_ (Ludovicus Antonius Muratorius - Vicipaedia; https://cf3.s3.souqcdn.com/item/2017/01/21/16/06/74/96/item_XXL_16067496_22405225.jpg)

_Paolo Sarpi → Paulus Sarpius_ (Paulus Sarpius - Vicipaedia; MDZ IIIF Bookshelf: Amelot de la Houssaie, Abraham Nicolas: Petrus Suavis Polanus, seu Paulus Sarpius Venetus, in auro contra non charo Historiae Concilii Tridentini Opere, adversus operosam, & Veram falso inscriptam, Concilii Tridentini Historiam, P. Sfortiae Pallavicini, Soc. Jesu & S.R. Cardinalis Presbyteri, nec non iniquam Scipionis Henrici, Theologi Messinensis, Censuram Theologicam & Historicam, frivolasque utriusque cavillationes, succincte quidem, sed nervose defensuss)
_-i_ removed:

_Niccolò Machiavelli → Nicolaus Maclavellus_ (Nicolaus Maclavellus - Vicipaedia; Digita Vaticana on Twitter)
_Brunetto Latini → Burnectus Latinus_ (Burnectus Latinus - Vicipaedia; Brunetto Latini)

_Poggio Bracciolini → Poggius Bracciolinus_ (Poggius Bracciolinus - Vicipaedia; Poggius Bracciolinus)
Variants like _Francesco Guicciardini → Franciscus Guicciardini_ (Franciscus Guicciardini - Vicipaedia; Ecclesiasticae historiae breviarum, 1-2) apparently weren't regarded as latinized at all.

As far as I can tell, the majority of names are left in Latin with_ -i,_ but without texts I can't tell if they were perceived as case forms. When different between Latin and Italian, the stem in such cases is (almost?) always left in its Italian form, as in _Guicciardini.
_
*Update:* added external links.


----------



## symposium

I'm afraid the Latin version of Wikipedia can't teach us anything on the historical formation of family names...


----------



## ahvalj

symposium said:


> I'm afraid the Latin version of Wikipedia can't teach us anything on the historical formation of family names...


If it contains real latinizations used by contemporaries, and not invented now when translating the articles, it can tell us how educated people perceived then this -_i._ It turns out that not everybody felt the -_i_ was a Gen. Sg. ending.

*Update.* I've added links to sources outside Vicipaedia for the references in my previous post. So, those latinizations are real.


----------

