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

Re: [S-R] Variations of -ik

Expand Messages
  • J.Michutka
    BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Hi Michael, Apologies to the group if this seems to be a bit OT, but on the other hand, we
    Message 1 of 103 , Aug 30, 2010
      BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Hi
      Apologies to the group if this seems to be a bit OT, but on the
      other hand, we can't interpret records w/o understanding the language!
      I don't know of a website, but have often used the expertise of the
      generous folks on Slovak-World. But I first check a Slovak language
      textbook such as James Naughton's _Colloquial Slovak_; for pickier
      questions, I turn to _Beginning Slovak_ by Oscar Swan and Sylvia
      Galova-Lorinc. I use the latter book almost as a Slovak grammar, with
      two cautions: info on one subject (eg uses of the dative) can be
      scattered throughout the book; my copy is heavily marked up, labeled
      sticky-tabs fringe the edge of the book, and I often annotate the
      index. Secondly, it's my understanding the this Slovak textbook is
      basically a translation of Swan's Polish textbook, and that has led to
      a few errors. On the other hand, I'll make far more errors on my own!
      I'll be happy to hear what others use as English-language resources
      for the Slovak language. I also try to always remember to check Bill
      T's website in case there's an article I've forgotten about, or a new
      resource. (Bill, I added your website to an exercise in the Boston
      Univ genealogy course, for which I am a TA. No surprise, students
      thought it was great, and I think it raised the bar on how they
      evaluate websites for research. Which was exactly what I wanted them
      to learn.)
      Julie Michutka
      On Mon 08/30/10 12:47 PM , "Michael Mojher" mgmojher@...
      Thanks for the clarification. It is so easy to presume because
      other Slavic languages has the patronymic ending Slovak would also.
      It is too bad that the website, slovnik.juls.savba.sk , didn't
      have a complete English version so we could take advantage of its
      grammar and dictionary functions. It is difficult to find answers to
      our Slovak language questions. Anyone know of such a website?
      From: Julie Michutka
      Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 8:52 AM
      To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com [1]
      Subject: Re: [S-R] Variations of -ik
      I'd heard this too (in the years before Slovak-World and Slovak-
      Roots), that my ancestral surname Pavlik meant "son of Paul." I'm
      not an expert, but Martin Votruba is, and he has repeatedly stated
      that Slovak does not have patronymics ("son of"). I defer to Martin
      on this issue.
      Julie Michutka (and yes, the -ka suffix is in this case an old
      masculine diminutive)
      jmm@... [2]
      On Aug 29, 2010, at 5:34 PM, martha.andras wrote:
      > Hi Michael & Janet,
      > Reading the posts about suffixes, would the suffix "ov" (as in
      > ANDRASOV)also mean son of?
      > Thanks!
      > Martha
      > --- In SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com [3], "Michael Mojher"
      > wrote:
      >> Janet,
      >> I saw where "iak" in Poland and the Ukraine was a suffix for
      >> "son of". I wonder if "ik" in Slovak may be the same.
      >> "ic" with a "v" above the "c" and "ka" is diminutive in Slovak.
      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      To visit your group on the web, go to:
      To unsubscribe from this group, go to
      http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS -or- send blank email
      to SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo [4]! Groups Links
      To visit your group on the web, go to:
      Your email settings:
      Individual Email | Traditional
      To change settings online go to:
      (Yahoo! ID required)
      To change settings via email:
      SLOVAK-ROOTS-digest@yahoogroups.com [5]
      SLOVAK-ROOTS-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com [6]
      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com [7]
      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

      [1] mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
      [2] mailto:jmm@...
      [3] mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
      [4] mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo
      [5] mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS-digest@yahoogroups.com
      [6] mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
      [7] mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Janet Kozlay
      Yes, I have checked out Turciansky Michal (Szent-Mihaly). That’s where a few of my entries came from. I also have checked the nobility lists for Turocz—not
      Message 103 of 103 , Sep 10, 2010
        Yes, I have checked out Turciansky Michal (Szent-Mihaly). That’s where a few of my entries came from.

        I also have checked the nobility lists for Turocz—not there.

        The only nobility information I have found is the ennoblement of a Kozla family in 1633, published in Torna megye in 1643 (Kempelen). But of course there is no proof that this is the same family. Since there is no village location given for “Torna” it would be a lot of work to examine all of the villages, though I suppose it could be done. Even then, could they be identified as being related to anyone in Turocz at a later time? It is the same problem with relating those from Turocz with those from Nograd.

        The family was Lutheran, which is why I pretty much focused on Ivancina. However, last week I took a look at all of the records from churches in the county, of which there are 11 Lutheran and 23 Roman Catholic. The records for only two of the Lutheran churches extend prior to 1780 (death of Maria Teresia). These are Neczpal (to 1690) and Ivancina/Ivankafalu (to 1715). Neczpal was in the northern district (Turoczszentmarton) and only Ivankafalu was in the southern (Stubnyafurdo/Mosocz-Zniovaralja). However, of the 18 Roman Catholic churches whose records date back to the 1600s or early 1700s, eight of them are in the southern district: Felso-Stubnya (from 1737), Haj (from 1674), Kis-Szoczocz (from 1690), Mosocz (from 1733), Szent-Gyorgy (from 1672), Szent-Mihaly (from 1690), Szkleno (from 1737), Tot-Prona (from 1730) and Znio-Varalja (from 1653). This is at least a workable number, and I’ve already looked at Szent-Mihaly.

        Good reasons for examining Roman Catholic records are twofold: One, they may in fact have been Roman Catholic at an earlier time. Two, I have seen at least one case where although the films are purportedly Roman Catholic, 90% of the early entries were for German Lutherans.

        Although this thread may have shed little light on my initial questions, I thank you who have responded for encouraging me to give yet another look to this area, to organize what material I have, and to suggest another avenue of research.


        From: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Margo Smith
        Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 7:58 PM
        To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [S-R] Variations of -ik

        The churches were required to keep the vital records until 1895. Parishes kept
        records a little differently from each other. Turciansky Michal records are
        hard to read. Checking them is worth the investment of $12. I'd do it. Let me
        know when you find them. If you think they might have been Lutheran (this area
        of the valley was religiously mixed), then you have more of a challenge.

        From: Elaine <epowell@... <mailto:epowell%40earthlink.net> >
        To: "SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> " <SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> >
        Sent: Thu, September 9, 2010 9:29:11 PM
        Subject: Re: [S-R] Variations of -ik

        That's amazing, Margo!

        Is it possible that the early Turocz records would include some for my
        Holub family, prior to the start of the Kostolany records? I don't
        know the history of the churches, or the requirements regarding
        recordkeeping. If you think it would be worthwhile for me to look,
        I'll order the films you listed.



        Sent from my iPhone

        On Sep 9, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Margo Smith <margolane61@... <mailto:margolane61%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

        > Yes, Elaine, Turocz records go back farther. The Roman Catholic
        > records for the
        > parish of Turciansky Michal (in which Kisfalu is located) go back to
        > 1690.
        > Reels 2062261 and 2062262. Kisfalu was a small village.
        > Margo
        > ________________________________
        > From: Elaine <epowell@... <mailto:epowell%40earthlink.net> >
        > To: "SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> " <SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> >
        > Sent: Mon, September 6, 2010 10:25:38 AM
        > Subject: Re: [S-R] Variations of -ik
        > Janet, thanks so much for posting your information, what an amazing
        > record of family history! And Margo, in addition to the research
        > pertinent to Janet's family, you caught my interest when you noted
        > that one member married in Kisfalu. That's the ancestral home of my
        > Holub family. I recently finished reviewing the 2 rolls of microfilm
        > for the RC records of Kisfalu and surrounding towns. However, the
        > earliest record was 1784. Was the information below in a note, or do
        > the Turocz records go back farther, like the ones Janet cited?
        > "Uhrik -- 1747 married in Kisfalu (by Turcianske Teplice)"
        > Elaine
        > Sent from my iPhone
        > On Sep 6, 2010, at 7:53 AM, "Janet Kozlay" <kozlay@... <mailto:kozlay%40verizon.net> > wrote:
        > > Margo,
        > >
        > > Thank you for attempting to address my question. Yes, I was “sugge
        > st
        > > ing” that “ege is an obsolete version of ik.”
        > >
        > > I have an unusual situation, as follows:
        > >
        > > Early 19th century manuscripts inherited by our family state that
        > > the family moved from Nagy Csepcseny in Turocz to the Hungarian
        > > Plain during the reign of Maria Teresia (died 1780). These were
        > > written by Jenő Kozlay, my husband’s great-grandfather, born abo
        > ut
        > > 1826 (cannot locate his baptismal record). He was well educated and
        > > articulate, and we know without any doubt that he was known by at le
        > > ast three names before he emigrated: János Kozik, János Kecskés,
        > > and Jenő Kozlay. His father, a butcher, was very wealthy. Both his
        > f
        > > ather and grandfather married into another butcher family (Massány
        > i)
        > > in Nograd megye. After the move south from Turócz, the family vario
        > > usly used the names Kozlay and Kozik (and Kecskés, but that’s not
        > > a problem) and have been found in the church records as such. Which
        > > name was used seemed to be associated at least sometimes with where
        > > they lived at the time (Nograd, Heves, Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok), but so
        > > metimes a single individual was found under both names in the same v
        > > illage.
        > >
        > > The situation is further complicated by the fact that the writer of
        > > the manuscripts stated that he descended from an “old noble
        > > family” and that the property that had been owned by his family in
        > N
        > > agy Csepcseny was “still” called Kozlayo Csaska (in 1844). At t
        > he
        > > same time, we know that after the move, at least, the family were bu
        > > tchers, which seems unlikely for a noble family.
        > >
        > > It was his grandfather, Samuel, who came south from Nagy Csepcseny.
        > > The records suggest that he was not married because he later married
        > > in Nograd. It is possible that Samuel did not come alone—with a br
        > ot
        > > her, perhaps?
        > >
        > > All of the records indicate that this was a very small family. Our
        > > ancestor from the early 19th century described himself as the only
        > > son of an only son. There are few entries in the Turócz church rec
        > or
        > > ds that could be associated with this family.
        > >
        > > Most of the Nagy Csepcseny records were in Ivancina; a few in Szent-
        > > Mihaly. The few entries that I have found that are possibly related
        > > are for the most part only witnesses rather than births or
        > > marriages. They can pretty much be divided into two groups: those
        > > that appear to be “Kozlay,” and these are almost always
        > > identified as noble, and those that appear to be Kozlik and which do
        > > not appear to be noble. (There are also many entries for Kozol in t
        > > hese records, which I have dismissed, as that family seems to be muc
        > > h too large.) Sometime back I asked Vladimir Bohinc if we could be c
        > > ertain that Kozlik and Kozik were the same. He said that Koz and Koz
        > > l referred to male and female goats, “but whether it mattered to t
        > he
        > > m, who knows?”
        > >
        > > They are as follows:
        > >
        > > From the 1715 Census for Turocz:
        > >
        > > Nicolaus Kozik, , Inquilinus, Neczpal
        > >
        > > Georgius Kozal, Colonus, Ivankafalu (Ivancina)
        > >
        > > From the Church Records:
        > >
        > > 1724 Death of noble Anna Draskovszky, wife of Johannis Kozler
        > >
        > > (This “er” suffix is extremely odd. Uncertain if related.)
        > >
        > > 1725 D.N. Kozlaj
        > >
        > > 1729 D. Joh. Kozlaj
        > >
        > > 1732 Joh. Kozlik
        > >
        > > 1736 Joh. Kozlik
        > >
        > > 1736 Catharina Kozlik (daughter of Johannis)
        > >
        > > 1741 Anna Kozljk, marries Georgius Murin
        > >
        > > 1742 Samu Kozik marries Catharina B? This might be Kovik.
        > >
        > > 1744 Kozlai
        > >
        > > 1745-9 Michael Kozljk
        > >
        > > 1747 Prov. Joh. Kozlik, died age 52
        > >
        > > 1752 Birth of Joannes Providi Michaelis Kozlik filius
        > >
        > > 1753 Joh. Kozljk (father of Maria, who marries Georg Schluch)
        > >
        > > (There are several entries for Barbara Schluch , noble. She married
        > > into noble Erdegh family.)
        > >
        > > 1756 Anna Kozlech, daughter of Joannes, died age 2
        > >
        > > 1768 Georgio Koslege or Kozlege (Found only in Szent-Mihaly/
        > > Turciansky Michal)
        > >
        > > 1772 Georgy Koslege or Kozlege
        > >
        > > 1792 Providus Joannes Kozik, died age 47, butcher from Lovinobana.
        > >
        > > This entry in the Ivancina records is the only one that spells the
        > > name without the “l.” Lovinobana is in Nograd. He died in the
        > > baths at Stubnyafurdo! I think we can presume, since he is listed in
        > > the Ivancina records, that he was visiting relatives when he died.
        > > If this is the Joannes born in 1752, his age is off by 7 years. Coul
        > > d he be a brother to Samuel?
        > >
        > > Obviously the paucity of the records from this period is a real
        > > problem. Since there is an almost complete lack of birth and
        > > marriage records for the family(ies), one might wonder if they could
        > > be with a different village. However, the few I have looked at don
        > ’t
        > > show anything.
        > >
        > > The fact that you found an instance of ege in Turciansky Michal, as
        > > have I, seems to me to support a theory that it may be a variant of
        > > ik but one that was specific to that village.
        > >
        > > There are several directions I could go:
        > >
        > > 1. Assume that there just isn’t anything more there; that records
        > in
        > > the 1700s were incomplete.
        > >
        > > 2. Look elsewhere in the area, though my previous attempts have not
        > > located anything.
        > >
        > > 3. Hire Vladimir Bohinc to look at other records, such as might be
        > > found in courts or real estate transactions. Probably would be very
        > > expensive.
        > >
        > > Not looking further means that I cannot verify that Jenő
        > > “descended from an old noble family” (Kozlay) or that his
        > > ancestors were Kozik/Kozliks. I would dearly love to find Samuel som
        > > ewhere in Turócz, but so far have been unsuccessful. The one Samu
        > Ko
        > > zik was married to a Catharina in 1742, but “our” Samuel Kozik/
        > > Kozlay married Zsuzsanna Massányi in Szirák, Nograd megye. The fam
        > il
        > > y seems to have settled at one point in Lovinobana, perhaps where th
        > > ey first settled, not far from Szirák. Unfortunately records for t
        > he
        > > late 1700s and early 1800s are gone—no one knows why. They might
        > ha
        > > ve answered some of these questions.
        > >
        > > All well, Margo, I don’t really expect you to solve my problems, b
        > ut
        > > it at least gave me the opportunity to put together in one spot all
        > > of the pieces I have.
        > >
        > > So if you’ve made it through this far, I thank you.
        > >
        > > Janet
        > >
        > > From: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:SLOVAK-
        > > ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Margo Smith
        > > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 12:37 PM
        > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com>
        > > Subject: Re: [S-R] Variations of -ik
        > >
        > > Ahoj Janet
        > >
        > > Here is what I have from Turiec, with my earliest reference: (my
        > > email doesn't
        > > accept diacritics)
        > >
        > > Bizik -- Zaturcie in 1784
        > > Kovascik -- mid 1700s, married a fellow from Zaturcie; also 1780s
        > > Ondrasova
        > > [different families]
        > > Janosik -- 1750 married in Ondrasova
        > > Uhrik -- 1747 married in Kisfalu (by Turcianske Teplice)
        > > Ludik -- born 1774 in Turciansky Michal
        > > Yanik -- giving birth in 1705 in Polerieka
        > >
        > > Kovaseje (sometimes ege) -- 1728 married in Turciansky Michal (I
        > > don't know if
        > > she had any brothers or if her father had any brothers)
        > >
        > > Are you suggesting that ege is an obsolete version of ik and that
        > > ege evolved
        > > into ik in the same family? If so, I have no evidence of that.
        > >
        > > Margo
        > >
        > > ________________________________
        > > From: Janet Kozlay <kozlay@... <mailto:kozlay%40verizon.net> <mailto:kozlay
        > %40verizon.net> >
        > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS
        > > %40yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 2:58:13 PM
        > > Subject: [S-R] Variations of -ik
        > >
        > > Has anyone encountered variations of the –ik name suffix in old (1
        > 7t
        > > h & 18th
        > > centuries) records. I would be especially interested in suffixes
        > > similar to
        > > –egh or –ege. I have found such spellings in Turóocz/Turiec and
        > > suspect they
        > > are obsolete spelling variations but would love to see some
        > > confirmation.
        > >
        > > Janet
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.