Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Prefixes in surnames

Expand Messages
  • wfhoffman
    Hi, ... I didn t mean to ignore your question, Lavrenty. I was on deadline with a publication, and when a deadline is looming, other things have to wait,
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 5 8:37 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      On Thursday, March 1 Lavrentiy asked:

      > In your Polish Surnames book, you wrote on p. 22:
      >
      > At last, a simple statement: Polish surnames consist of a root plus
      > suffixes.
      >
      > *******
      >
      > My question is: are surnames that begin with nie- and pod-
      > regarded as surnames that have a prefix-, -root-, and -suffix
      > construct, or is the prefix and root regarded as the root of the
      > surname?
      >
      > Can you provide other prefixes which are added to root words?

      I didn't mean to ignore your question, Lavrenty. I was on deadline with a
      publication, and when a deadline is looming, other things have to wait,
      including correspondence.

      I'd say in practical terms it's best to regard the prefix and root as one
      element. That's not true for linguists, whose experience enables them to
      recognize prefixes, roots, and suffixes fairly easily; and if a researcher
      knows the language well enough to recognize them, fine. But most
      genealogical researchers are not linguists, and for them it's probably wise
      to keep the prefix and root connected.

      For instance, anyone who knows Polish immediately recognizes that
      _niezamezna_ breaks down as nie- + za- + -maz- -ny, "not-after-husband-ish,"
      in other words, "unmarried." The _nie-_ is nothing more than a prefix. But
      ask a unmarried Polish woman who's pregnant and she'll tell you that when it
      comes to _niezamezna_ that nie- is a lot more than a prefix! There's a big
      difference between _zamezna_ (literally "after husband," meaning a woman has
      left her parents' home and gone after her husband) and _niezamezna_.

      There are a lot of prefixes that can be added to roots in Polish. Some of
      them are:

      bez-, "without, -less";
      do-, "to, up to" (implying motion or change all the way up to a certain
      limit);
      na-, "on, at";
      nad-, "above, over";
      nie-, "not, un-"
      ob-, "around";
      od-, "from, since, re-";
      po-, "along, after";
      pod-, "under, near";
      prze-, "through, per, thoroughly";
      przy-, "at, to by";
      u-, "at, by, with";
      w-, "into, to";
      wy-, "out of, from";
      z-, "with";
      za-, "after, beyond, past"

      I'm sure there are more, but those come to mind. Notice that most of them
      are also usable separately as prepositions. The meanings I've given above
      are very basic, and in practice it can be a lot tougher to interpret what
      they mean in a given instance. Also, if you're familiar with other Slavic
      languages such as Ukrainian, a lot of these are familiar, once you adjust
      for linguistic preferences; Ukrainians use pid- basically the same way Poles
      use pod-; pere- matches up with prze-, vid- matches up with od- and/or wy-,
      and so on.

      Sometimes recognizing the separate parts of a word is fairly easy. Thus
      _nie_ means "not, " _do_ means "to, up to," and the root _jad_ means "eat";
      so you can see how the name NIEDOJAD, literally "not-up to-eat," means "one
      who never gets enough to eat." It probably started as a nickname for an
      ancestor who'd eat you out of house and home, or perhaps one who always
      looked or acted like he was starving, or even one who looked like he'd never
      missed a meal. If you know the language moderately well, you recognize these
      components and putting them together makes it easier to remember exactly
      what they mean.

      But most genealogical researchers have enough on their minds without
      expecting them to parse the component elements of names. So I'd say one
      should approach names without paying too much attention to the prefixes
      added to the roots. If you reach the point where you start noticing them and
      making correlations as to their meanings, great! And it's not hard to
      recognize that nie- means "not, un-"; I think most folks can handle that
      one. For most of the others, though, it's probably not worth the effort,
      unless you have ambitions of learning the language.

      Fred Hoffman
    • krupniak
      Hello Fred, Is s (either Roman letter s in languages such as Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, etc. or the languages that use cyrillic) a preposition in any
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 5 12:09 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Fred,

        Is s (either Roman letter s in languages such as Polish, Czech,
        Slovak, Hungarian, etc. or the languages that use cyrillic) a
        preposition in any found in Eastern Europe, or a prefix (S- .....
        that would be added to a root word?

        _______

        Lavrentiy




        --- In Galicia_Poland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com, "wfhoffman"
        <WFHoffman@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi,
        >
        > On Thursday, March 1 Lavrentiy asked:
        >
        > > In your Polish Surnames book, you wrote on p. 22:
        > >
        > > At last, a simple statement: Polish surnames consist of a root
        plus
        > > suffixes.
        > >
        > > *******
        > >
        > > My question is: are surnames that begin with nie- and pod-
        > > regarded as surnames that have a prefix-, -root-, and -suffix
        > > construct, or is the prefix and root regarded as the root of the
        > > surname?
        > >
        > > Can you provide other prefixes which are added to root words?
        >
        > I didn't mean to ignore your question, Lavrenty. I was on deadline
        with a
        > publication, and when a deadline is looming, other things have to
        wait,
        > including correspondence.
        >
        > I'd say in practical terms it's best to regard the prefix and root
        as one
        > element. That's not true for linguists, whose experience enables
        them to
        > recognize prefixes, roots, and suffixes fairly easily; and if a
        researcher
        > knows the language well enough to recognize them, fine. But most
        > genealogical researchers are not linguists, and for them it's
        probably wise
        > to keep the prefix and root connected.
        >
        > For instance, anyone who knows Polish immediately recognizes that
        > _niezamezna_ breaks down as nie- + za- + -maz- -ny, "not-after-
        husband-ish,"
        > in other words, "unmarried." The _nie-_ is nothing more than a
        prefix. But
        > ask a unmarried Polish woman who's pregnant and she'll tell you
        that when it
        > comes to _niezamezna_ that nie- is a lot more than a prefix!
        There's a big
        > difference between _zamezna_ (literally "after husband," meaning a
        woman has
        > left her parents' home and gone after her husband) and _niezamezna_.
        >
        > There are a lot of prefixes that can be added to roots in Polish.
        Some of
        > them are:
        >
        > bez-, "without, -less";
        > do-, "to, up to" (implying motion or change all the way up to a
        certain
        > limit);
        > na-, "on, at";
        > nad-, "above, over";
        > nie-, "not, un-"
        > ob-, "around";
        > od-, "from, since, re-";
        > po-, "along, after";
        > pod-, "under, near";
        > prze-, "through, per, thoroughly";
        > przy-, "at, to by";
        > u-, "at, by, with";
        > w-, "into, to";
        > wy-, "out of, from";
        > z-, "with";
        > za-, "after, beyond, past"
        >
        > I'm sure there are more, but those come to mind. Notice that most
        of them
        > are also usable separately as prepositions. The meanings I've given
        above
        > are very basic, and in practice it can be a lot tougher to
        interpret what
        > they mean in a given instance. Also, if you're familiar with other
        Slavic
        > languages such as Ukrainian, a lot of these are familiar, once you
        adjust
        > for linguistic preferences; Ukrainians use pid- basically the same
        way Poles
        > use pod-; pere- matches up with prze-, vid- matches up with od-
        and/or wy-,
        > and so on.
        >
        > Sometimes recognizing the separate parts of a word is fairly easy.
        Thus
        > _nie_ means "not, " _do_ means "to, up to," and the root _jad_
        means "eat";
        > so you can see how the name NIEDOJAD, literally "not-up to-eat,"
        means "one
        > who never gets enough to eat." It probably started as a nickname
        for an
        > ancestor who'd eat you out of house and home, or perhaps one who
        always
        > looked or acted like he was starving, or even one who looked like
        he'd never
        > missed a meal. If you know the language moderately well, you
        recognize these
        > components and putting them together makes it easier to remember
        exactly
        > what they mean.
        >
        > But most genealogical researchers have enough on their minds
        without
        > expecting them to parse the component elements of names. So I'd say
        one
        > should approach names without paying too much attention to the
        prefixes
        > added to the roots. If you reach the point where you start noticing
        them and
        > making correlations as to their meanings, great! And it's not hard
        to
        > recognize that nie- means "not, un-"; I think most folks can handle
        that
        > one. For most of the others, though, it's probably not worth the
        effort,
        > unless you have ambitions of learning the language.
        >
        > Fred Hoffman
        >
      • Bielawa, Matthew (Registrar)
        Hi all! Fred, excuse me for jumping in here for a minute....and definitely correct me if I m WRONG....!! I can speak on behalf of Russian. There is both a
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 5 12:49 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi all!



          Fred, excuse me for jumping in here for a minute....and definitely
          correct me if I'm WRONG....!!



          I can speak on behalf of Russian. There is both a preposition and
          prefix "S" (in Cyrillic: "C").



          Preposition

          The preposition could mean "with" <when used with the instrumental case>
          or "from" or "down from" or "out of" <when used with the genitive case>.

          "s mamoi" <with mother>; "s vokzala" <from the train
          station>; "s Ukrainy" <from Ukraine, though old fashioned and somewhat
          rude to the Ukrainians. Now, it's IZ Ukrainy>



          Prefix

          --The prefix is commonly found in verbs of motion, such as "skhodit'"
          <"to come/walk from" or "come/walk down from">, "sbegat'" <"to run from"
          or "to run down from">, etc.

          --It's also used as a prefix to form the perfective aspect of a verb:
          delat' <imperfective aspect "to do/make"> and sdelat' <perfective aspect
          "to do/make">

          --it's also a prefix for non verbs of motion. For example: skazat' <to
          tell>, as opposed to other prefixes: pokazat' <to show>, prikazat' <to
          order>, rasskazat' <to tell/narrate>





          And as an example of it usage as both a preposition and a prefix in one
          sentence, how about this common phrase and title of the recent hit song
          by the Russian pop group TATU:

          Ya soshla s uma <I'm crazy or literally, I'm going out of my mind>

          The group sang it on the Jay Leno Show, even!





          I believe that the above information...plus $2.50....has just gotten me
          my cup of coffee (large black without ice)....



          Matthew



          ________________________________

          From: Galicia_Poland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:Galicia_Poland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of krupniak
          Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:10 PM
          To: Galicia_Poland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [Galicia_Poland-Ukraine] Re: Prefixes in surnames



          Hello Fred,

          Is s (either Roman letter s in languages such as Polish, Czech,
          Slovak, Hungarian, etc. or the languages that use cyrillic) a
          preposition in any found in Eastern Europe, or a prefix (S- .....
          that would be added to a root word?

          _______

          Lavrentiy

          --- In Galicia_Poland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com
          <mailto:Galicia_Poland-Ukraine%40yahoogroups.com> , "wfhoffman"
          <WFHoffman@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi,
          >
          > On Thursday, March 1 Lavrentiy asked:
          >
          > > In your Polish Surnames book, you wrote on p. 22:
          > >
          > > At last, a simple statement: Polish surnames consist of a root
          plus
          > > suffixes.
          > >
          > > *******
          > >
          > > My question is: are surnames that begin with nie- and pod-
          > > regarded as surnames that have a prefix-, -root-, and -suffix
          > > construct, or is the prefix and root regarded as the root of the
          > > surname?
          > >
          > > Can you provide other prefixes which are added to root words?
          >
          > I didn't mean to ignore your question, Lavrenty. I was on deadline
          with a
          > publication, and when a deadline is looming, other things have to
          wait,
          > including correspondence.
          >
          > I'd say in practical terms it's best to regard the prefix and root
          as one
          > element. That's not true for linguists, whose experience enables
          them to
          > recognize prefixes, roots, and suffixes fairly easily; and if a
          researcher
          > knows the language well enough to recognize them, fine. But most
          > genealogical researchers are not linguists, and for them it's
          probably wise
          > to keep the prefix and root connected.
          >
          > For instance, anyone who knows Polish immediately recognizes that
          > _niezamezna_ breaks down as nie- + za- + -maz- -ny, "not-after-
          husband-ish,"
          > in other words, "unmarried." The _nie-_ is nothing more than a
          prefix. But
          > ask a unmarried Polish woman who's pregnant and she'll tell you
          that when it
          > comes to _niezamezna_ that nie- is a lot more than a prefix!
          There's a big
          > difference between _zamezna_ (literally "after husband," meaning a
          woman has
          > left her parents' home and gone after her husband) and _niezamezna_.
          >
          > There are a lot of prefixes that can be added to roots in Polish.
          Some of
          > them are:
          >
          > bez-, "without, -less";
          > do-, "to, up to" (implying motion or change all the way up to a
          certain
          > limit);
          > na-, "on, at";
          > nad-, "above, over";
          > nie-, "not, un-"
          > ob-, "around";
          > od-, "from, since, re-";
          > po-, "along, after";
          > pod-, "under, near";
          > prze-, "through, per, thoroughly";
          > przy-, "at, to by";
          > u-, "at, by, with";
          > w-, "into, to";
          > wy-, "out of, from";
          > z-, "with";
          > za-, "after, beyond, past"
          >
          > I'm sure there are more, but those come to mind. Notice that most
          of them
          > are also usable separately as prepositions. The meanings I've given
          above
          > are very basic, and in practice it can be a lot tougher to
          interpret what
          > they mean in a given instance. Also, if you're familiar with other
          Slavic
          > languages such as Ukrainian, a lot of these are familiar, once you
          adjust
          > for linguistic preferences; Ukrainians use pid- basically the same
          way Poles
          > use pod-; pere- matches up with prze-, vid- matches up with od-
          and/or wy-,
          > and so on.
          >
          > Sometimes recognizing the separate parts of a word is fairly easy.
          Thus
          > _nie_ means "not, " _do_ means "to, up to," and the root _jad_
          means "eat";
          > so you can see how the name NIEDOJAD, literally "not-up to-eat,"
          means "one
          > who never gets enough to eat." It probably started as a nickname
          for an
          > ancestor who'd eat you out of house and home, or perhaps one who
          always
          > looked or acted like he was starving, or even one who looked like
          he'd never
          > missed a meal. If you know the language moderately well, you
          recognize these
          > components and putting them together makes it easier to remember
          exactly
          > what they mean.
          >
          > But most genealogical researchers have enough on their minds
          without
          > expecting them to parse the component elements of names. So I'd say
          one
          > should approach names without paying too much attention to the
          prefixes
          > added to the roots. If you reach the point where you start noticing
          them and
          > making correlations as to their meanings, great! And it's not hard
          to
          > recognize that nie- means "not, un-"; I think most folks can handle
          that
          > one. For most of the others, though, it's probably not worth the
          effort,
          > unless you have ambitions of learning the language.
          >
          > Fred Hoffman
          >





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • wfhoffman
          Hi, ... S, or in Polish Z, is a prefix that can be added to verbs and nouns. It s also a preposition, generally meaning from, off when used with the genitive
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 5 1:08 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi,

            Lavrentiy asked:

            > Is s (either Roman letter s in languages such as Polish, Czech,
            > Slovak, Hungarian, etc. or the languages that use cyrillic) a
            > preposition in any found in Eastern Europe, or a prefix (S- .....
            > that would be added to a root word?

            S, or in Polish Z, is a prefix that can be added to verbs and nouns. It's
            also a preposition, generally meaning "from, off" when used with the
            genitive case; but it can also mean "with, accompanied by" when followed by
            the instrumental. As a prefix, it's often added to a verb form to create the
            perfective aspect. Thus in Russian _delat'_ means "to do," and _sdelat'_
            means "to do it once and get it over and done with." It's the same basic
            distinction as between Ukrainian _robyty_ and _zrobyty_. In many cases it's
            hard to translate; and in names there's usually no need to bother. Just look
            up the appropriate root beginning S- or Z-; a good dictionary will refer you
            to the corresponding form without S- or Z- if that's appropriate. Otherwise
            treat it as an integral part of the root word.

            Incidentally, that's a difference between the Slavic languages, as opposed
            to English. They stick a prefix onto the start of a verb or verb-derived
            noun; we separate it and put it after the verb. We say "He takes off his
            jacket," they say "He off-takes his jacket." German is even worse; sometimes
            it tacks the prefix onto the start of the verb, but other times it separates
            it and sends it to the end of the clause. The German verb _abfahren_,
            literally "to away-go," often takes that _ab_ part and puts it after the
            verb, often far away. You end up saying stuff that translates literally as
            "I go on the next Tuesday by jet on a trip to Moscow away." But in a
            subordinate clause the verb goes to the end with it: "If I on the next
            Tuesday by jet on a trip to Moscow away-go." And people gripe that Polish is
            confusing!

            Fred Hoffman
          • krupniak
            Hello Fred and Matt, OK...here s my conundrum (i.e. an intricate and difficult problem). I m analyzing the meaning of a surname but at the current time I m
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 5 2:06 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Fred and Matt,

              OK...here's my conundrum (i.e. an intricate and difficult
              problem). I'm analyzing the "meaning of a surname" but at the current
              time I'm not certain which language established the setting for the
              family name's development.

              _______

              Lavrentiy
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.