Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7376040" data-attributes="member: 6683613">What briggart said is entirely correct for cognomina and would be incorrect for praenomina. So I would asssume that they said what they meant.There is a difference between a family and a clan, and the modern English family name is not a clan name. Can you please acknowledge that this is the point I have been trying to make to you from the beginning, even if you disagree with it? It would make you look a little less like you're begging the question.Also: &quot;surname&quot;. Nothing to do with &quot;sir&quot;.Everyone in the family for whom it is possible to have the name (i.e.: the boys) has the name.Why on earth should a family name have to be formal and consistent to be a family name? (Never mind that the use of the cognomen as a family name was pretty formal and consistent by the era of Caesar, Crassus, Brutus, Cicero, and Cato... whose names were all examples of this.) If a certain name is used to identify a family, it makes sense to call it a &quot;family name&quot;, even if it's not a legal term and/or not every family in the culture has one. What else would you call it?On the contrary, it was quite rare. And has nothing to do with the reason Caesar's name became atypical, so I don't understand what you're trying to say by bringing it up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 7376040, member: 6683613"] What briggart said is entirely correct for cognomina and would be incorrect for praenomina. So I would asssume that they said what they meant. There is a difference between a family and a clan, and the modern English family name is not a clan name. Can you please acknowledge that this is the point I have been trying to make to you from the beginning, even if you disagree with it? It would make you look a little less like you're begging the question. Also: "surname". Nothing to do with "sir". Everyone in the family for whom it is possible to have the name ([I]i.e.[/I]: the boys) has the name. Why on earth should a family name have to be formal and consistent to be a family name? (Never mind that the use of the cognomen as a family name [I]was[/I] pretty formal and consistent by the era of Caesar, Crassus, Brutus, Cicero, and Cato... whose names were all examples of this.) If a certain name is used to identify a family, it makes sense to call it a "family name", even if it's not a legal term and/or not every family in the culture has one. What else would you call it? On the contrary, it was quite rare. And has nothing to do with the reason Caesar's name became atypical, so I don't understand what you're trying to say by bringing it up. [/QUOTE]

Verification