Hi all,
I was just interested to know who spells Henry VIII's first wife as Katherine of Aragon or who spells her name Catherine of Aragon?
Personally I prefer to spell it Katherine of Aragon.

Bye

-Jaffas85

Jaffas, from what I have seen, the majority spell it Catherine of Aragon, but some text books and sites give her name as Katharine of Aragon with 'ar' instead of 'er'. Don't suppose it matters really, seems like both variations are acceptable.

I wonder how Katherine of Aragon herself spelt her name?
Shouldn't we be able to look at historical documents that might have her signature on it and find out the correct way of spelling her name?
I do know that before she moved to England from Spain she was known as 'Katalina'.

The trouble is that you might find more than one spelling, even from Catherine herself. The notion of "correct spelling" is fairly modern. I'd date it from the early 18th century in English. In former times you find words (even proper names) spelled in various ways by the same writer, sometimes in the same document. Shakespeare spelled his surname in at least six different ways; the Victorians tended to call him Shakspere), There are also a vast number of spellings of Sir Walter Raleigh's name (though for most of his life he seems to have stuck to Ralegh without the "i").

The same is true in other European languages, though English may be more chaotic than most. Even if Catherine only ever used one English form of her name, she would probably not have regarded variants as "incorrect".

Of course, nowadays we tend to want one "correct" spelling for most words, including individual proper names. Since the choice is largely arbitrary, I'd be inclined to vote with the majority and write Catherine.

Ditto Tabby, but for the other Catherines/Katherines etc.,
I always thought it was Kathryn Howard and Catherine Parr.

Am I correct?

This is an interesting site.. a sort of rhyming couplet for everyone ... maybe as aides-memoires?? http://www.mamalee.com/bklae.html

Encyclopedia Brittanica is my yardstick in this and they spell Catherine for C of A, CH and CP.
On the Continent, it was only after the introduction of the Code Napoleon that the spelling of names got fixed.
I would doubt it that England was quicker to introduce bureaucratic uniformity.
Even nowadays I come across cases of siblings whose surname is spelled differently by inadvertent town-clerks:e.g. a family where the elder son's name is spelled Devooght, the younger son Devoogt.
There also occur differences between baptismal registers and the Registry Office, as in cases when local parish priest does not want to enter a name such as Liz and requires the official saint's name Elizabeth.
I even know a case of a family that emigrated to Holland and got their name completely misunderstood there by the local administration so that from Quaaghebuur("dangerous neighbour" they changed into "Wagenbuur"(wagonshed).

Interesting topic...spelling. Anyone have info on how spelling was viewed in ancient Greece and ancient Rome? I would imagine that the spelling (and grammar, of course!) rules became quite strict for Latin during the imperial period in Rome?

Is spelling really an important phenomenon? I believe it is by golly...there's a big difference between there and their or here and hear! The Chinese are very strict about "spelling", even insisting on a proper stroke order for each character...I think we should be too...

Jazz, I've never studied Greek and I'm lamentably ignorant about Greek civilization, but I think you're right about Rome. Traditionally, a Roman boy's education began with instruction in reading and writing from a "ludi magister" (schoolmaster), or perhaps from a private tutor or an educated slave belonging to his parents. This basic education would almost certainly have included the conventional spelling of the day.

Our surviving Latin literary manuscripts are not of course originals, but they probably reflect the spelling of their original authors. The spelling that we find in these MSS varies from early Latin works to later ones (reflecting linguistic change) but is generally consistent in reproductions of the works of the classical period, except when an author deliberately uses an archaic or non-standard form for special effect. Graffiti in places like Pompeii have non-standard spellings reflecting non-standard pronunciations, but classical authors (even if they may have spoken in the popular way) seem to have adhered strictly to standard spelling.

I imagine that this standardized spelling of Latin was also taught in the schools of medieval and early modern Europe. But the vernacular languages were not taught at all, because the only language of scholarship was Latin. This probably explains why vernacular spelling was so capricious.

Latin came under increasing pressure from vernacular languages, but down to the late 17th century we find scholars like Isaac Newton publishing their major works in Latin. From the eighteenth century onwards the vernacular languages win out over Latin: and hence it's then that we start finding people taking vernacular spelling and grammar seriously (in England, at any rate).

Is spelling important? Yes, but mainly because important people say that it's important. You mention misunderstandings over homonyms: I think that these arise, for the most part, simply because spelling has been standardized. If I say "That's neither here nor there", or "They're very fond of their cats", nobody doubts what word I'm using. If I write "Their very fond of there cats", I cause confusion in my readers' minds. But I think this confusion arises because we've been taught to associate one spelling with one meaning: if spelling were more fluid, we'd probably consider the various possibilities and identify the right word in a written document as quickly and easily as we do when listening to speech.

This thread started with a question about the spelling of names. I find it interesting that, when the spelling of English in general is almost entirely standardized, the spelling of given names has become more and more a matter of personal choice. And people get offended if you misspell their names. Four hundred years ago Sir Walter Raleigh's contemporaries were addressing him in writing as Raleigh, Ralegh, Rawley, Raulie, Rawlegh, Rawlighe, Rawlye, Rawleyghe, etc, and the gallant gentleman doesn't seem to have cared (possibly because he had more important things to care about). Today, if I want to write to a woman called Nicola, I have to remember whether she spells her name Nicola or Nichola. If I want to use a short form of the name, I have to remember whether she prefers Nicky or Nicki or Nikki or Niki or God knows what. If I want to write about people in the news I must remember that the former First Lady of the US is Hillary and not Hilary, and so on.

Is it because spelling, and life in general, has become so strictly regulated that we attach such importance to creating ingeniously individual spellings for our names?

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: TabbyTom ]

An important element in the standardisation of spelling but also in the standardisation of language in general was the invention of book-printing.
If you wanted to sell a book to a large readership then it mattered that they did not consider your book as being written in other people's dialect/regional language.
Your "product" had to be recognised by as many "customers" as possible as meant for them.
Book production becomes cheaper when your market is larger.
For that reason Flemish publishers usually employ Dutch correctors so that minor language differences get erased.

The standardisation of the spelling of proper names is very much a matter of "policing" the population.
In 18th century there existed "identity papers" which mentioned colour of hair, colour of eyes, etc. To be certain they were not mistaking you for somebody else you were required to have a uniform spelling of both your names, first name and surname. There even developed a trend , to add a second and a third name to the so-called first name. John Peter Joseph Johnson was better identifiable than John Johnson.
In practice nobody paid any attention to those additional names, except the representatives of 'law and order'.

Sometimes that uniformity leads to funny consequences. If you give your baby a diminutive first name such as Johnnie...and then the baby happens to grow into an oversized 6 foot and more tall young man Johnnie may prefer to be called John.

Typical "rebellion" of adolescents is to change their first name into what they like to hear.Mary becoming Mo etc.

"Correct spelling" has practical advantages, but sometimes it becomes a tool of repression.People being bereft of some degree of personal freedom.
If at my birth they called me Winifred , I cannot simply become Winnie anymore.At least not in official documents.And not without taking the matter to court and paying a sum of money for every letter I wnat to change.

Correctness of spelling, grammar, usage is not merely a linguistic matter.These things also reflect the conflict between on the one hand the need for uniformity, stability and on the other hand the need for personal freedom,self-expression.
Two more remarks: a. teachers with little inspiration to teach meaningful things , tend to fall back on "law and order" subjects such as grammar and orthography b. being "bad" at orthography is NOT a sign of lack of intelligence.
Personally I prefer a correctly spelled text, but I would allow for an amount of freedom for the individual user of the language, at least within certain limits.There is something playful and creative in spellings such as : "C U to-nite." But it matters that you know WHEN you can take liberties with spelling.
Some countries have an official "orthography list".Flanders (=North-Belgium) and Holland have the same list.It' s made by a joint committee of linguists.
Applying the prescriptions of that list is what you learn to do at school.As an adult you have to judge for yourself how strictly you want to apply it, WHEN orthography rules have to be rigidly followed.
After all you don't wear the same type of clothes at the office as when on holiday either.

I always thought it was Catherine for Aragon and the other two were both Katherines...

So I guess those quesitons can't be fill in the blank unless you give all the versions of spelling now!

Columbia Encyclopedia (American source) mentions Katharine of Aragon , and then Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr.
The Penguin Spelling Dictionary (British source) has Catherine as the normal spelling and includes Katherine,Katharine and Catharine ( between brackets ) ,as possible variants.Does not specify whether any of Henry VIII's wives preferred one of those
variants.

Hardly possible to find any consistency in what website encyclopedias do. www.encyclopedia.com ( Columbia on line) is consistent with
its book version: Katharine of Aragon and two Catherines. www.britannica.com differs from its paysite version www.eb.com www.eb.com has Catherine in all three cases; www.britannica.com has Catherine of Aragon ;Catherine Howard and Katharine Parr.
The least one can say is that there is not a 'one and only correct orthography'.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but does it really matter?

Yes, it does matter. Now we know not to have any fill in the blank questions in quizzyland about the names of the wives unless all the variations of spelling are given.

Fine, then tell the setters that Michael can also be spelt 'Micheal' which seems to be the 'in thing', especially in movies.

Yes, but if I spell my dad's name 'Micheal" that's not correct because it can be proven which is the correct spelling. If you can prove that someone spells there name "Micheal," then that should be the correct answer. Otherwise it's wrong.

You make an excellent point Beth as usual, but what I am saying is this. We can all go round the ruddy mulberry bush 500 times like we seem to be doing and get no further forward. Why doesn't the setter just put in the 'possible' alternatives as answers? And if they haven't done so, for whatever reasons then the editor ought to do it, instead of messages flying around like confetti at a wedding. Yes your dads name can be confirmed, unfortunately Katharine Katherine Catherine Catharine cannot. Neither can Michael or Micheal Myers, as to the correct spelling of their respective names, so why not just put in the alternatives and let's get on with it or else we will all still be at it when Halley's comet reappears.

But I'm pretty sure Mike Myers has one way to spell his name that is correct. What it sounds ot me that you're syaing is that all the names should have alternate spellings, just in case somoene decides that it should be spelled differently.

But I think those cases are few and far between, and have RARELY occurred the past 100-200 years because of good record-keeping.

Actually, I'm more interested in the discussion about the correctness of language and the seeming tension between proper grammatical syntax and innovative writing forms. Tom Robbins is the most brilliant author I have read, often switching into inventive literary forms.

At what point do literary liberties become offensive? At what point does the witty and underhanded become unreadable? At what point does flow become interrupted?

I ask this in part because I fully intend on writing a rather... innovative... novel in the near future. Modern novel writing seems to have fallen into a very irritatingly boring rut where it is quite obvious that a simple recipe is being followed. Novels are now like planned communities -- organized, pruned, and easy on the eyes, but lacking character and wit.

Terry

My whole point in my writing is that it must flow. Even when I use strong language in certain passages, its spelling mustn't hamper the flow of the words. I like my spelling to be unobtrusive. If I take great liberties with my own language I do it in a way that doesn't really grate on the reader's nerves. (at least I try!). One of the best complements an editor for a manuscript said to me was "hey, never saw that written before!"
I agree with the planned community part myself! Why else do I put down about half of the novels I buy here from the "circuit" meaning the English publishers' version of what other Europeans might read. They are so bland and without life.

Now as to spelling, I take the middle path. And as I am a translator by profession as well as a teacher I always take a middle ground. I have seen other translators have hissy fits when they don't accept the fact that there isn't a word for everything. Flemmie and I have talked about this.
I put myself into the shoes of the listener and the speaker both. And try to perform the miracle. If it could be done by babelfish then I'd be out of a job. I always write my Tarzan and Jane letter and put it through about three times to prove it.
As spelling wasn't standardized for Catherine's name then (nor for the word I just wrote in the last sentence!)a K or a C might be used.
Now in America you'll find that there are many many variant spellings for current names. In France up until a short time ago (legislation only allowed certain names in the mid 1990s) you had to have a properly spelled Christian calendar name. Now you can have other variations but a recent court case reveals that there are distinct limits. And the officer of etat civil in your town is the ultimate authority!
If you wanted Sue Ellen you spelled it Suzanne Helene.
But in America it's Brandi...with an i!
For historical figures I think including both is proper if there is some debate for their names.
For everyday people it should be the way they spell their own name.
Stephen King and not Steven.
Heather not Hether (now that made me sit up with a jolt!)
Tom Robbins not Robins.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: bruyere ]

I agree with you totally Beth about the spelling of Michael Myers, however the particular instance that I cited earlier, it was spelt wrongly in the questions and did not require the taker to do a FITB.
No I am not saying that all names should have different spellings just in case someone should decide to spell it differently. What I am saying is that in the case of someone like the lady from Aragon, then (like you pointed out) all the possible variations on spelling her name should be given. If the setter hasn't done it, then the editor can put them in (not exactly rocket science) and everyone is then happy without having to call in the United Nations. That is what I am saying. Again as you rightly point out, it only happens rarely, so it isn't too much to ask from either setter or editor instead of having the constant merry-go-round of corrections, debates etc.

The Penguin Spelling Dictionary ,1990 London has a section on First Names that comprises a comprehensive list of English first names, together with their spelling variants -if any.(pp.521-537)
In most cases there is NO variant. In a number of cases there is just one variant: Billy-Billie;Anne-Ann;...
Cases like Catherine with 3 variants are relatively rare:
Gabby (Gabbie;Gabi;Gabby).
Frederick (Frederic;Fredrick;Fredric)
Gwendoline (Gwendolyn;Gwendolen;Guendolen).

I wonder if it is such a good idea to require quiz questions/answers to mention ALL possible variants.
In some cases there is no doubt which variant is the correct one.
Oscar Wilde's "Importance of Being Earnest" includes a Gwendolen in its cast,not a Guendolen,Gwendolyn,Gwendoline.

And do we have to refer to the author of the Canterbury Tales as Geoffrey (also: Jeffrey) Chaucer?

Is there any authorative source that tells us how many variants there are in the way a particular CONCRETE person's name is spelled ??

I know what I am talking about as both my first name and my
surname tend to be written by others in half a dozen different ways.
Incorrect spellings slip in even in semi-official and occasionally in official documents.

It gets even more complicated when you have to check how many English spellings there are for Russian names. Especially if you take into account that there are more letters in the Cyrillic alphabet than English ever can render.

I doubt whether there is any authoritative source that will give us all the known spellings of historical persons' names. Even if we can establish all the known spellings for Sir Walter Raleigh or Henry Wriothesley, there is always a chance that we shall discover a document that uses a hitherto unknown spelling.

Flemmie's list of variants on Frederick doesn't take Handel into account. The composer, baptized as Georg Friedrich Händel, spelled his name as George FRIDERIC Handel when he settled in England, and this is the spelling normally used nowadays by musicologists.

When we transliterate from languages that don't use Roman script, there are several problems. One is the fact that some of the sounds in those languages don't exist in Emglish. Another is that English spelling is so chaotic that there may be several ways of representing the same sound.

Scholars may do their best to minimize these difficulties; but scholarship, like everything else, has its fashions. For centuries, the man who is revered by Muslims as the Prophet of God was generally known in English as Mahomet. In the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries he became Mohammed, and he is now becoming Muhammad (sometimes with a dot under the "h" to indicate a guttural pronunciation). No doubt these changes bring us closer to an authentic Arabic pronunciation, but they cause confusion while they are in progress. In Chinese we have had the Wade-Giles transcription replaced by the Pinyin. Those of us who used to read about Mao Tse-tung every day in our newspapers must now get used to Mao Zedong; and the explorer whom we used to call Cheng Ho has become Zheng He. (I'm told that Pinyin isn't universally popular among Chinese communities outside the People's Republic - perhaps Ren or the Jazz could comment).

As far as quizzes are concerned, I don't think we should get our knickers in too much of a twist. Quizmakers should try to ensure that they allow for known variants, and editors should double-check. But if I fill in a blank in my old-fashioned way with Mohammed or Hwang Ho or Tchaikovsky or Rheims where the quizmaker has allowed only for Muhammad or Huang He or Reims or Tchaikovski, I shan't worry. I shall be satisfied that I got it right and spelled it acceptably. I may lose points on these questions, but on the other hand I'll get points that I don't deserve for lucky guesses on multiple choice questions. Our gratitude to the quizmakers and editors for the entertainment that they provide should outweigh any minor irritation that we may feel when an occasional answer is disallowed. It's only a game, after all.

Sir, Mr Tabby Tom, you've gone and done it! I don't think I've ever used the LOL abbreviation or a smiley or emiticon, but that one did me in and I'm sorely tempted!
My knickers in a twist!

This is worse than when our dear Minch and I tried to track down the expression "tempest in a teacup" and its ilk.

So thank you very much, I'm trying to do my best to appear serious here at work and that one was my Waterloo.

I will now get off of my own high horse.
Whoa Nellie.