5.0798 Rs: Gender Diff. in Names; Angry Student (4/65)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Sat, 28 Mar 1992 18:09:34 EST
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0798. Saturday, 28 Mar 1992.
(1) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 16:00 EST (32 lines)
From: "NAME MICHEL (MGRIMAUD@LUCY.WELLESLEY.EDU) GRIMAUD"
Subject: Re: 5.0785 Gender Differentiation in Names
(2) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 10:06:54 IST (23 lines)
From: "David M. Schaps" <F21004@BARILVM>
Subject: Re: 5.0785 Gender Differentiation in Names
(3) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 06:41:19 EST (5 lines)
From: FCOTTER@SETONVM
Subject: Re: 5.0785 Gender Differentiation in Names
(4) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 18:41:54 EST (5 lines)
From: Michael <MMORSE@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Subject: Re: 5.0789 angry student query
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 16:00 EST
From: "NAME MICHEL (MGRIMAUD@LUCY.WELLESLEY.EDU) GRIMAUD"
Subject: Re: 5.0785 Gender Differentiation in Names (1/90)
The hypothesis concerning the existence of names for women in Rome is
intriguing. However, I have two comments:
KINSHIP TERMS INSTEAD OF NAMES... OR STANDARD AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES
--General onomastic practices the previous centuries and of Roman times
too (I believe) privileged KINSHIP TERMS... such as "daughter" in address
and reference. It is easy in reference to say "my first daughter" or "my
youngest daughter" or "niece". In address, one need only look at someone
and say "daughter". Often, the CONTENT of one's address suffices to
indicate whom we are talking to. The proof of this whole pudding of course
is that in many cultures there is a taboo on calling people by name... yet
all these cultures manage fine. We all know about the "mother-in-law
naming problem" (most people hesitate, often for years, to call her
"mother")... yet we manage fine.
In many cultures TODAY women are not named either... and people manage
fine
--See for example China (Rubie Watson, "The Named and the Nameless gender
and person in Chinese society" American Anthropologist, 13, 4, 1986, 619-
631)
For abundant bibliographic references, see my two-part article "Les
Onomastiques" in the NOUVELLE REVUE D'ONOMASTIQUE (# 15-16, 1990, pp. 5-23
and # 17-18, pp. 9-24) [You don't need to read much French to understand
much of it; and a majority of the bib refs are in English anyway.]
Michel Grimaud
Wellesley College
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------29----
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 10:06:54 IST
From: "David M. Schaps" <F21004@BARILVM>
Subject: Re: 5.0785 Gender Differentiation in Names (1/90)
With regard to Gary Forsythe's comment about Roman women's names: I
was not of the impression that those who have written on the subject
were unaware of the fact that a mother with two daughters would have
to distinguish them; and do we not know of sisters being distinguished
as Maior and Minor, Prima, Secunda, and Tertia? One could also use
nicknames: Cicero called his daughter Tullia Tulliola (and he called
her that before she was married, too; but she was an only daughter).
Clodia Metelli was a woman with sisters, and it is hard to see why,
if she had a first name, so notable and notorious a woman would never
have heard it used -- the more so as we have a speech written against
her (Cicero's _Pro Caelio_), where the Greek practice, certainly,
would have been to make a point of using the name that should, accor-
ding to good etiquette, have been avoided (see on this "The Woman
Least Mentioned" in CQ 27 (N.S., '77), 323-30). What is the secret
evidence that Prof. Forsythe mentions that suggests that these women
really did have praenomina? His own parallel suggests the opposite:
at no period of which I know did Miss Brown lose her personal name
when she became Mrs. Jones -- or even, for that matter, when she
became Duchess of York.
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------11----
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 06:41:19 EST
From: FCOTTER@SETONVM
Subject: Re: 5.0785 Gender Differentiation in Names (1/90)
what class are you talking about?
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------14----
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 18:41:54 EST
From: Michael <MMORSE@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Subject: Re: 5.0789 angry student query
Yes: Julius Caesar!