NobleSpaniard
Member
- Time of past OR future Camino
- Camino Portugués (June 2018)
For 2024 Pilgrims: €50,- donation = 1 year with no ads on the forum + 90% off any 2024 Guide. More here. (Discount code sent to you by Private Message after your donation) |
---|
Do get it right. I have a relative who thought she was saying "Mother" on a tattoo in a foreign language, but it did not...I have been working on a tattoo which I intend to get, and included the dieresis in my latest incarnation.
You've probably come across this, but I think it has information that could help you decide on what variation of the spelling to get for your tattoo: http://santiagoinlove.com/en/ultreia-meaning/
In Latin, there is no dieresis. It would have most likely been spelt "Ultreia".
To add further uses/spellings of the term to your research check out the various citations in -- http://xacopedia.com/
Is that a y or is it a j? Does Latin have a y?Thank you!
With this site, I managed my way to http://xacopedia.com/Dum_pater_familias , where I clicked on the manuscript page thumbnail, and was able to isolate the phrase.
View attachment 43360
"Herru Sanctiagu
Grot Sanctiagu
E ultreya (eultreya) e suseya (esuseya )
Deus aia nos”
I am still curious as to the origins of the Ultreïa spelling.
Is that a y or is it a j? Does Latin have a y?
It’s a j but in those days i and j were apparently considered as variants of the same sound. A consistent transcription is either Sanctiagu, esuseya and aya or Sanctiagu, esuseia and aia. aia is translated as help in the usual quotes, but that’s not a proper Latin word either. The Latin verb is adiuvare so correct Latin is adiuvat (he helps) or adiuva (help!). That’s why the popular French contemporary version Tous les matins nous prennons le Chemin has the correct Latin phrase: Deus adiuva nos.Is that a y or is it a j? Does Latin have a y?
It’s not a Latin word.
Ultreïa is the preferred spelling of a French writer.
It’s a j but in those days i and j were apparently considered as variants of the same sound (quoted; don’t quite understand that myself).
The Codex is 1200’s. The dieresis is early 1600’s. It is unlikely in the original Latin.
My guess! Like Beyonce; just add an accent and it is way cooler...I'm leaning towards, "it looks cool/different/archaic that way,"
The Codex is 1200’s. The dieresis is early 1600’s. It is unlikely in the original Latin.
diaeresis, 1610s, "sign marking the division of a diphthong into two simple sounds," from Late Latin diaeresis, from Greek diairesis "division," noun of action from diairein "to divide, separate," from dia- "apart" (see dia-) + hairein "to take" (see heresy). In classical prosody, "the slight break in the forward motion of a line that is felt when the end of a foot coincides with the end of a word" [Miller Williams, "Patterns of Poetry"].
Others may have already alluded to this, but, the expression first begins to be used in the Codex Calixtinus, waaay back in the day, where the phrase "Ultre ia Et Sus eia, Deus adjuva nos!"is first found.
I am seriously NOT trying to be obtuse, but I cannot make out the text in the image of the actual original Latin script above. Is the actual line of text there?
No danger of that being a concern on this thread!I am seriously NOT trying to be obtuse, but
Maybe this helps:
one of the contemporary transliterations ultreia, ultreya or ultreïa (presumably preferred way of correct spelling by English, Spanish and French speakers respectively).
No danger of that being a concern on this thread!
Somewhere in the original post I realized that the intelligence level required for this discussion was stratospheric, but keep it up guys. It is interesting!
Well, it’s crystal clear to me.
However, I start to wonder whether everybody realises just what a linguistic jumble these 4 lines are:
"Herru Sanctiagu
G[r]ot Sanctiagu
E ultreia e suseia
Deus aia nos”
The first two lines are definitely not Latin. Also, people can’t make up their minds whether the first word in the second line is got or grot and whether to translate it as good, great or even God. I side with good.
Just in case someone wants to have a tattoo of the whole lot ...
Go with @Kathar1na's הַלְלוּיָהּ.
"With the intention of maintaining a Spanish version that would keep the rhyme and metric structure of the original as much as possible, to preserve its poetic form and be able to be sung in our language, a poetic adaptation was made, without any merit, but nothing like Sing(ing) this piece in its original text to give it its true sound dimension. The translation given here only seeks to offer an understandable meaning, without attending to metrics or rhyme. [ACE]..."
You were correct. I WAS looking at the wrong post (#22 vs. #6) my bad. Thanks for the correction. However, when I followed your link to the source of your text (http://xacopedia.com/Dum_pater_familias), I found the following statement just above the printed "Dum Pater Familias." The bold emphasis is mine.
Thus, I suggest the version you are quoting might be a literary adaptation, intended to make the sung prayer sound more "correct" by inserting a phonetic cue to how the word should be pronounced when sung. My understanding, as referenced in my post, was based on a literal translation of the actual Latin verse, albeit printed in a modern typeface.
Does this sound correct to you?
"And Onward! And Upward! God speed our way!"
"Herru Sanctiagu
Grot Sanctiagu
E ultreya e suseya
Deus aia nos"
Well, it’s crystal clear to me.
However, I start to wonder whether everybody realises just what a linguistic jumble these 4 lines are:
"Herru Sanctiagu
G[r]ot Sanctiagu
E ultreia e suseia
Deus aia nos”
The first two lines are definitely not Latin. Also, people can’t make up their minds whether the first word in the second line is got or grot and whether to translate it as good, great or even God. I side with good.
Just in case someone wants to have a tattoo of the whole lot ...
Again, the operative phrase is in the final two lines of the fourth stanza...
Does this help?
in the Codex Calixtinus, waaay back in the day, where the phrase "Ultre ia Et Sus eia, Deus adjuva nos!"is first found
Personally, my preferred spelling is "ultreia", but that is a personal preference.
Interesting!Slightly off topic: Watch "How Spanish got its ñ - the story behind that "n with a tilde"" on YouTube
YouTube ID = J7vreUPCI9c
Did the common Latin spelling of the word include the dieresis?
From my french speaking experience, in Quebec, we use both Ultreia or Ultreïa. Never done any research on the topic, though. I personally chose the second for my own tattoo.
@NobleSpaniard , this quote seems to be point of your post. My response follows:
No, nada, nix dieresis (sic) in Latin of any stripe, ever.
But I have really enjoyed following the red herrings and other stuff in this stream.
Thank you for your contribution! I found it very informative.
Out of curiosity, can you attribute your personal preference to anything linguistic in particular, or is your preference more aesthetic?
Thank you for the definitive response.
The point of my initial post was really to discern the origin of the use of dieresis when spelling Ultreïa.
The options I assumed were Latin, French, or Old English.
I appreciate the confirmation that Latin never used the dieresis. (nor trema?)
It doesn't appear to be a standard in modern French, either, if they interchange it the same as English speakers.
So, did it appear in Olde English, or perhaps old French translations?
Or is it a more modern convention of unknown origin, owing more to graphic design than linguistic evolution amongst a given nationality/language?
Likewise!
I fear the answer to the OP's question may be "none of the three".It’s a j
Thank you for your comments, @David Tallan . Medieval Latin paleography is a fascinating topic and I know next to nothing about it. I can barely decipher a manuscript when I have a modern transcription right next to it!Latin paleography isn't a simple subject. Scribes used lots of abbreviations and so the words "as written" weren't always equivalent to the words as spoken or as written elsewhere where no or different abbreviations were used.
It was used in early Latin (Hellenistic era) before words were separated by a space, partly to clarify that a vowel was its own syllabel and was spoken individually rather than as a dipthong or ellipsis. That usage continues today in a number of languages including the Romance languages including Occitan, Catalan, French, and Galician. I suspect that its use results from someone picking it up from something he/she has recently read, and passing it on. My grand-uncle, a chairman of a college history department, once said, "anyone who cannot spell a word more than one way is showing no imagination." He lived to be 105, and his published works, pre-spellcheck, show that he lived his philosophy!Absolutely sure that the dieresis did not appear in Old English or Middle English.
That's what we often read and we understand herru Sanctiagu to mean Lord Saint James but what language is it really?They are Germanic:
Herru = lord
From http://www.xacobeo.fr/ZF2.04.cha.Ad_honorem.htmthe words ultreya and esuseya also appear in:
- a prose of Book I, Chapter XXVI, and
- the last verse of the full text of the hymn of Aymeric Picaud Ad honorem Regis summi.
I have not yet been able to find images of either of these pages, to see if perhaps he included the dieresis.
this leaves us with the third occurrence of the two words in Book I. Let's see if we can dig up a photocopy of the relevant folio of the CC, too.
Found it! http://www.xacobeo.fr is a fantastic treasure trove. Below is a photocopied extract from the CC manuscript, Book I, Chapter XXVI, entitled Prosa sancti Iacobi latinis, grecis et ebraicis verbis a domno papa Calixto abreviata. I can clearly read the words gentes lingue tribus [...] clamantes sus eia ultreia and that someone has written sursum [...] above the words sus eia to explain what it means. And sursum is a proper Latin wordthe words ultreya and esuseya also appear in:
- a prose of Book I, Chapter XXVI
Thank you for your comments, @David Tallan . Medieval Latin paleography is a fascinating topic and I know next to nothing about it. I can barely decipher a manuscript when I have a modern transcription right next to it!
Having another look at the extract that is already mentioned earlier I noticed a difference in the line Primus ex apostolis Martir Ierosolimis jacobus that is repeated several times in the Dum pater song (see below). At the first occurrence, I read it as [...] jerosolimis [...] and at the second occurrence as [...] jerosolimjs [...]. Are such differences within the same text common? BTW, I now noticed that the scribe used abbreviations for this line later on, as you pointed out. Interesting.
View attachment 43600
You can see the long s in the word "jerosolimis" that she is drawing our attention to.Like s and f (in fact a long s looking like a f without the -) in older English books, just a way of writing a letter that has become obsolete?
someone has written sursum [...] above the words sus eia to explain what it me and.
The words are hard to make out on the image pasted into this thread but it's possible to read it from the original manuscript. The words added above sus eia ultreia read as follows: sursum perge, vade ante.the rest of that annotation
Wow, just wow. I had no idea that all this stuff is on the internet. Below is an extract of the song from an edition from the 13th century, held at the BNF (folio 174v). It's written in French, not in Latin, and the word is outree (=outrée). It sounds very similar to ultreia, and it's the same Latin root. It's a song that expresses the longing and anxiety of a lady whose lover has gone on a crusade to the land of the Saracens [Arabs/Muslims] from where few men return.It is known that [ultreia] was also used by crusaders as there is at least one medieval French song containing the expression in this context.
In summary, here they are:
View attachment 43645
(from "prose" part in Santiago CC; from Dum pater in Santiago CC; and from Ad honorem in early partial copy of CC)
Doesn't really help with the tattoo but confirms again, in my
It's esus. They use two different letters for the sound "s", just like they use two different letters for the sound "i" and there doesn't seem to be a rule about when to use what, even by the same scriptor and even within the same hymn or running text.(efus???)
Very interesting. I wasn't at all aware of that.People are always going on about how many different ways Shakespeare spelled his own name, and he was several generations after Gutenberg and Caxton.
I have to thank you for stimulating this discussion! I had read about the various occurrences and presumed etymology of the word ultreia numerous times but it was only thanks to your question that I discovered that it's possible to view so many old manuscripts online and I find it fascinating. It makes a difference to actually see text in its orginal or near original form with one's own eyes instead of just reading about it in a book or article that relies on a source that relies on another source that relies on yet another source and so on, nearly ad infinitum.the purpose of the thread was to delve into the origins of the word/phrase, and its various spellings. I never expected it to bear so much fruit!
I second that. The problem (perhaps) is that much of the scholarly research was done in the 19th century, and the 20th century of course, and the majority of these works were not published in English but in Spanish and in French and to a lesser degree in German and Italian, while older scholarly works are still in Latin, and the old manuscripts are also kept in archives in these countries. So there is a bit of a linguistic hurdle to overcome when one tries to wade through it all to finally find a clue that leads further.Please don't hesitate to continue sharing any further discoveries, or other thoughts, on the subject. That goes for everyone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?