RootsChat.Com

Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: Janet Waterhouse on Thursday 06 December 18 13:08 GMT (UK)

Title: 1692 Latin burial extract 6
Post by: Janet Waterhouse on Thursday 06 December 18 13:08 GMT (UK)

Good afternoon,

another part completed translation:

Elizabeth wife of ? [Edmund Simm] 8th day of November.

Help appreciated.

Regards,

Janet

Title: Re: 1692 Latin burial extract 6
Post by: horselydown86 on Thursday 06 December 18 14:34 GMT (UK)

I presume you are asking for confirmation of the husband's name.

I'm fairly happy with Edmu(n)di = of Edmund

It's quite common to contract this name by dropping the n.  Normally there'd be a mark to indicate the contraction, but I can't see one here.

However, the name can't be anything else, in my opinion.

The surname could be Simm.  I have two reservations:

1.  I'd like to see another example or two of S from the same handwriting.

     I'm not totally convinced this is an S.

2.  Does the short horizontal line above the first m belong to a letter on the line above?

     If it doesn't, it's apparently a contraction mark;  but the name Simm isn't contracted.


A larger sample of the handwriting would be useful.

Title: Re: 1692 Latin burial extract 6
Post by: Janet Waterhouse on Thursday 06 December 18 15:02 GMT (UK)

Good afternoon horselydown86,

Thank you for responding.

I've moved on to the 1693 entries where another occurrence of extract 6b is shown which clearly now appears to be (L) from Laurentius.

So, surname Luimn?

I've included a larger section of the original extract the (-) appears to go with this entry and not the entry above.  As you can see from extract 6a the name above is Abbott so no need for contraction.

I agree with your explanation of Edmun (n) di, in a later 1693 entry, Edmundi is shown in full.

Regards,

Janet

Title: Re: 1692 Latin burial extract 6
Post by: horselydown86 on Thursday 06 December 18 15:31 GMT (UK)

Thanks for posting the extra images, Janet.  I agree that Edmund's surname probably begins with L.

While I agree that the horizontal line doesn't belong to the text in the line above, it's hard to know what to make of it.  You may have noticed that he dropped the n from Laure(n)tius without a contraction mark, just as he did with Edmu(n)di.  (I presume he means Laurence in 6b.)

I've stared at Edmund's surname for quite some time but really can't make enough of the series of minims (the verticals) to commit to an answer.  That's before even thinking about a possible contraction.

I'm sorry, but I can't do any better than that.

Title: Re: 1692 Latin burial extract 6
Post by: Janet Waterhouse on Thursday 06 December 18 15:55 GMT (UK)

Thanks again for your response.
I shall leave the request open a little longer.

In later 1800 transcriptions two surnames crop up, namely Limb and Lumb.  Maybe this surname is related to either Limb = Limm or Lumb = Lumm?

Another occurrence of the surname might appear which will provide an answer?

I'll let you know if it does.

Regards,

Janet

Title: Re: 1692 Latin burial extract 6
Post by: horselydown86 on Friday 07 December 18 04:28 GMT (UK)

Quote from: Janet Waterhouse on Thursday 06 December 18 15:55 GMT (UK)

In later 1800 transcriptions two surnames crop up, namely Limb and Lumb.  Maybe this surname is related to either Limb = Limm or Lumb = Lumm?

I do agree that mm is the most likely interpretation of the six minims.

Title: Re: 1692 Latin burial extract 6
Post by: Janet Waterhouse on Friday 07 December 18 10:31 GMT (UK)

Thank you for your reply.

Regards,

Janet

Title: Re: 1692 Latin burial extract 6
Post by: clayton bradley on Friday 07 December 18 15:23 GMT (UK)

I don't know where the parish register is from but there are many Waterhouses round Halifax, Yorkshire and there are also many Lummes/Lumbs, with all sorts of spellings, cb