Articles > Names Some Masculine Ogham Names: Research Notes
by Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn
(Heather Rose Jones, contact@heatherrosejones.com)
compiled May 1999; edited Aug 2001
My original version of this list was prepared for Academy of Saint Gabriel report 1738. In further research to prepare this article, I ran into a few
typos and errors of grammatical classification in the previous version. To
correct them and to avoid having to re-do the research, I have put together
an annotated reference version of the data. One of
the reasons for setting out the reasoning in such detail is that I think it
helps me avoid the sorts of interpretation errors that got included in the
previous version. This appendix presents a detailed discussion of how and
why I reconstructed the forms the way I did.
Some notation:
- An asterisk * preceding a form means (as usual) that it is a
hypothetical reconstruction. In general, I've preserved the spelling
of the original inscription as much as possible otherwise, even when
it appears to be a non-standard variant.
- A form in regular type the Old Irish column means that this
equivalence is given by McManus. (Note that sometimes he provides
only an Old Irish genitive.) Forms in this column in italics,
unless otherwise annotated, are my own best guess at an equivalent.
(Sometimes I haven't even tried.)
- Purely as a cross-reference, Old Irish forms that appear in Ó
Corráin & Maguire are marked with #, although OC&M doesn't
directly reference the Oghamic forms.
- [Lat.] means that the form is taken from a Latin, Roman-letter
inscription rather than an Ogham one. There's only one of these
where the primary example of the name in question is in this form
(and we may want to remove that one for consistency -- it may have
been included in error originally), mostly this involves comparison
forms mentioned in the notes.
- The numbers in the first column are the reference
numbers of the inscription(s) in which the form is found. These
are used in McManus and refer to the listings in MacAlister.
- Notes and discussions, if present, are on the following line after
the name and enclosed in square brackets.
All references are listed on another page.
Reference Number |
Ogham Nominative |
Ogham Genitive
| Old Irish Form |
Notes |
1. Masculine o-stem, with deuterotheme <-agnas>, genitive
<-agni>.
Both declensional forms are mentioned in McManus p.107, although the
nominative appears to be reconstructed rather than found in any
inscriptions. Very straightforward group.
|
241 | *Baidagnas | Baidagni | #Báetán |
316 | *Brocagnas | Brocagni | #Broccán |
Corrected from previous typo <Crocagni>; see also Latin forms in inscriptions 372, 478. |
71, 166 | *Coimagnas | Coimagni | Cóemán, #Cáemán |
63 | *Colomagnas | Colomagni | #Colmán |
(ii) | *Commaggagnas | Commaggagni | #Comgán |
98 | *Corbagnas | Corbagni | Corbán |
41 | *Covagnas | Covagni | Cuan [from Ziegler], #Cúán |
The name does not appear in the index to McManus, but occurs in the
text; as quoted in CISP, Ziegler (1994) 156 argues that this
represents OIr <Cuan>. |
441 | *Curcagnas | Curcagni [Lat.] | Corcán, #Corccán |
119, 230 | *Dalagnas | Dalagni | #Dallán |
432 | *Dovagnas | Dovagni | #Dubán |
Previously listed as <Dobagni> but that was from the Latin
inscription. |
262 | *Ercagnas | Ercagni | Ercán |
307 | *Gattagnas | Gattagni | Gáethán |
60, 160, 258 | *Mailagnas | Mailagni | #Máelán |
135 | *Minnaccagnas | Minnaccanni | [gen.] Mincháinn, presumably nom. Minchán |
307 | *Moddagnas | Moddagni | Múadán, #Muadán |
192 | *Qenilocagnas | Qenilocagni | Cennlachán, #Cellachán |
75 | *Rodagnas | Rodagni | Ródán > #Rúadán |
449 | *Sagragnas | Sagragni | #Sárán |
85 | *Scilagnas | Scilagni | Scellán |
181 | *Talagnas | Talagni | Tálán |
467 | *Ulcagnas | Ulcagni | #Olcán |
2. Masculine o-stems with adjectival suffix. Suffix is discussed and
identified as o-stem in McManus p.108, but no nominative form is
given there. Nominative <-acas> is postulated by me in parallel.
|
89 | *Biracas | Biraci | #Berach,
#Berrach |
The inscription actually reads <BIRACO> but this is generally
interpreted as an error for <BIRACI> and I have gone with the
"corrected" reading instead; OC&M lists <Berach> as masculine and
<Berrach> as feminine -- it's unclear how significant the spelling
difference is. |
180 | *Caliacas | Caliaci | Cailech |
37 | *Dovatucas | Dovatuci | #Dubthach |
This name also occurs in an á-stem form, q.v. |
170 | *Qenilocas | Qeniloci | #Cellach |
This name is not specifically identified as having the adjectival
suffix, however whether or not it has this suffix, the genitive form
suggests an o-stem anyway. |
3. Other masculine o-stem nouns. The source for the identification
of the declensional class is given when available, otherwise the
conclusion is based on the form of the genitive.
|
3a. Deuterotheme = <-maglas>, gen. <-magli>.
|
425 | *Catomaglas | Catomagli [Lat.] |
Cathmál, #Cathmáel |
501 | *Cunamaglas | Cunamagli |
Conmál, #Conmáel |
3b. Deuterotheme = <-genas>, gen. <-geni>
|
39 | *Branogenas | Branogeni | Brangen |
259 | *Ivagenas | Ivageni | #Éogan |
126 | *Soginas | Sogini | [gen.]Sogain [read: SOGENI] |
Presumably OIr nominative <Sogan>. |
3c. Deuterotheme = <*-valas>, gen. <-vali>. The Gaulish cognate of
the deutherotheme is presented as o-stem in Evans p.421 and Schmidt
p.284. |
504 | *Cunavalas | Cunavali | #Conall |
Previously listed as <Cunovali> from the Latin inscription. |
375 | *Totavalas | Totavali [Lat.] | Túathal, #Tuathal |
3d. Miscellaneous |
368 | *Barrivendas | Barrivendi | #Barr(fh)ind |
The deutherotheme is an o/á-stem adjective in OIr, see DIL
<finn>; Schmidt p.296 shows the cognate Gaulish element behaving as o-stem. |
154, 162 | *Corbbas | Corbbi | #Corb, #Corbb |
128 | *Culidovas | Culidovi | Cúldub | In OIr, the adjective from which the deuterotheme is derived is
u-stem (but like all u & i-stems at that period borrows the o-stem
genitive form), see Thurneysen p.227, DIL <dub>; I can find no
examples of the cognate in Gaulish names. |
342 | *Cunacennas | Cunacenni | Conchenn |
The deutherotheme is an o-stem neuter noun in OIr, DIL <cenn>. |
3 | *Cunalegas | Cunalegi | Conlang? |
This may be the same name as the late á-stem genitive <Cunalegea> in (275), which would represent nom. <Cunalega>. |
154 | *Cunamaqqas | Cunamaqqi | Conmac, #Conmacc | The deutherotheme is an o-stem noun in OIr, see DIL <mac>. |
449 | *Cunatamas | Cunatami | ? | Listed previously as <Cunotami> from the Latin form; as referenced
in CISP, several authors identify this with OW <Cunutam>, MW
<Condaf>, but do not offer an Irish equivalent. |
63 | *Dovalescas | Dovalesci | Duiblesc | If the deutherotheme is identified with OIr <lesc> (DIL), it is an
o/á-stem adjective in OIr. |
368 | *Vendubaras | Vendubari | Findbarr, #Finnbarr | The deutherotheme is identified as o-stem in McManus p.102. |
185 | *Vlatiamas | Vlatiami | #Flaithem | The deutherotheme (actually a suffix) is identified as o-stem in
McManus p.108. |
3e. Uncertain. McManus gives no clue to what declensional class
this name falls in, and the form doesn't help much. The deuterotheme
is an adjective that, in Old Irish, takes an o/ á-stem declension, so
the best guess is to treat this as a variant of an expected o-stem
genitive <Bodibevi> and reconstruct nominative <Bodibevas>.
|
378 | *Bodibevas | Bodibeve [Lat.] | Búaidbéo | The Ogham inscription is only partial, reading <BODDIB...>. |
4. yo-stems. Discussed in McManus p.115 where he notes that the
genitive ending of these is indistinguishable in the written Ogham
form from that of o-stems, but the declensional class can be
retrieved from the appearance of a final vowel in Old Irish
nominatives. No examples of an Ogham nominative are mentioned. None
of my other sources speak directly to the question either, but my
best guess would be a nominative <-ias>. The genitive is <-i>
representing an underlying <-iyi>, but there wouldn't be a parallel
reason for the stem <i> to disappear in the nominative.
|
Specifically identified in McManus as yo-stem: |
215 | *Battignias | Battigni | #Báethíne |
106 | *Coribirias | Coribiri | Coirpre, #Cairbre |
10 | *Corrbrias | Corrbri | Coirpre, #Cairbre |
160 | *Curcittias | Curcitti | Cuircthe |
46 | *Sedanias | Sedani | Sétnae, #Sétna |
129 | *Veqoanaias | Veqoanai | Fíachnae?, #Fiachna |
Assumed to be yo-stem by analogy with the above: |
138 | *Laddignias | Laddigni | Laidíne | My guess. |
6 | *Qasignias | Qasigni | Caissín(e), #Caisséne |
5. á-stems. See McManus p.115, where he discusses how this class
appears to have borrowed forms frim the ya-stem declension. As a
nominal declension, this class is normally feminine, with <-á>
in the nominative and <-ias> in the genitive, however there is no
doubt that these are the names of male individuals. (There are even
clearer examples of Gaulish men's names in the á stem declension,
see Lambert "La Langue Galois" p.54.) Male names in this class tended to
shift to the o-stem declension, witness the two examples here which
apparently occur in both forms. To the best of my knowledge, the
length of the <a> in the nominative ending would not affect the Ogham
spelling.
|
275 | *Cunalega | Cunalegea | Conlang? | This may be the same name as o-stem <*Cunalegas>. |
431 | *Dovatuca | D[o]v[a]tuceas | #Dubthach | This name also occurs in an o-stem form, q.v. |
156 | *Dovvina | Dovvinias | Duibne |
190 | *Gossucttia | Gossucttias | Gósacht |
6. i-stems and u-stems. McManus (p.116) indicates that these behave
essentially identically in the genitive. The earliest forms have
<-os> in the genitive (the u-stem form generalized to both
declensions) which later becomes <-o>, and presumably the <-u>
is a variant on this stage. (He notes that Old Irish forms begin with the
<-o> and later become <-a>.) Again, no nominative forms are
available. Lambert (p.59) gives some Gaulish examples of i-stem
nominatives in <-is>, and Gallo-Greek examples of u-stem nominatives
with <-omicron-upsilon-sigma> which corresponds to <-us> in Roman
letters. When u-stem and i-stem elements occur as protothemes in
Ogham inscriptions, the composition vowel appears as <u> and <i>
respectively (although u stems may also appear with <o>). All this
leads me to suggest <-us> and <-is> as plausible for the Ogham
nominatives, unless better arguments are offered. MacBain p.xxxiv drew the
same conclusion.
|
6a. u-stem, deuterotheme <-catus>, gen. <-catos>, <-cato>
|
500 | *Ambicatus | Ambicatos | #Imchad | The form <Ambicatos> was previously mis-identified as nominative. |
19 | *Ivacattus | Ivacattos | Éochad | The form <Ivacattos> was previously mis-identified as nominative. |
353 | *Trenaccatus | Trenaccato |
Trenchad? | My guess; the Ogham actually reads <TRENACCATLO> and various authors, as
reported in CISP, venture interpretations of this form, rather than
assuming an error for <TRENACCATO> as McManus does, relying on
comparison with the Latin form <TRENACATUS>. |
6b. u-stem, deuterotheme <-gus(s)us>, gen. <-gus(s)os>, <-gusu>, <-goso>
|
107 | *Cunagussus | Cunagussos | Congus | The form <Cunagussos> was previously mis-identified as nominative. |
70 | *Cunagusus | Cunagusos | Congus |
428 | *Trenagusus | Trenagusu | Trengus | CISP cites Westwood 1879 as referring to a later form <Trengus>. |
121 | *Vergosus | Vergoso | #Fergus |
6c. i-stem
|
168 | *Ircittis | Irccitos | Ercaid, [gen.] Irchada | The form <Ircittos> was previously mis-identified as nominative. |
(xiv, 206) | *Veddellemettis | Veddellemetto | #Fedelmid |
7-9. Consonantal Stems. See McManus p.116. The genitive ending in
the Oghamic forms is first <-as> and in later examples <-a> and
finally null. The nominative form depends on the nature of the stem.
|
7. n-stems. Only two deuterothemes occur here, genitive <-aidonas>
(OIr <aed> "fire") and genitive <-conas> (OIr <cú>
"dog"). It's interesting to note that in Old Irish, the latter retains the
nasal declension while the former loses it and borrows forms willy-nilly
from other declensions. (The OIr genitive appears to be borrowed
from the u-stems.) As usual, no Ogham nominatives are available.
Gaulish examples of the nominative for this declension have <-ú>
(Lambert p.61, also Evans "Gaulish Personal Names" p.427) and this is
the vowel of the OIr nominative (e.g., <cú>). Thurneysen p.58
mentions Celtic */u:/ from IE */o:/ and notes that it survives in the
nominative singular of n-stems. When it doesn't appear, either the final
consonant has u-quality, or it's from a source that he thinks resisted
u-quality. Overall it seems clear that he's thinking of a nominative singular
in <-u>. I agree, and suggest nominative <-u> to go with
genitive <-onas> (variant: <-unas>).
|
7a. deuterotheme <*-aidu>, gen. <-aidonas> (McManus p.103):
|
504 | *Bivaidu | Bivaidonas | #Béoáed |
504 | *Bivaidu | Bivaidonas | #Béoáed | This is a duplicate here, correcting the previous typo <Vibaidonas>. |
503 | *Dovaidu | Dovaidona[s] | Dubáed |
368 | *Dumeledu | Dumeledonas | ? |
16 | *Dunaidu | Dunaidonas | Dunáed? | My guess. |
93 | *Ercaidu | Ercaidana | Ercáed? | My guess at the OIr equivalent -- O'Brien lists an Ercaid, Erchaid,
but McManus derives it from <Ircitt-> and it doesn't match the
pattern for the <-aidonas> group. |
4 | *Lugaddu | Lugaddon | #Lugáed |
7b. deuterotheme <-cu>, gen. <-conas>, variant <-cunas> (McManus p.102):
|
134 | *Assicu | Assicona? | Assiucc | This is missing from the index in McManus, but appears in the text. |
86 | *Cliucu | Cliucoanas | ? | This is generally interpreted as a variant form of Cliucunas. |
191 | *Gamicu | Gamicunas | ? | CISP indicates that Ziegler has a discussion of the name, but does
not reproduce any of it. |
159, 252 | *Glasicu | Glasiconas | Glaisiuc, Glaschu |
446 | *Maglicu | Maglicunas | ? | CISP indicates that Nash-Williams 1950 suggests a nominative
<Maglicu>, however the only known parallels in later naming are Welsh
<Maelgwn> from the oblique stem. |
126 | *Vedacu | Vedacuna[s] | [gen.]Fíadchon, nom. Fíadchú | My guess. |
164 | *Voenacu | Voenacunas | ? |
8. Dental stems. For the dental and velar stems, the stem
consonant is theoretically present in the nominative, followed by
<s>. Although, as usual, no nominatives are present in the data,
McManus (p.108) confirms the forms as nominative <-ts> genitive
<-tos>. The question is whether this represents only the underlying
phonology or whether it also represents the expected written Ogham
form. I'm thinking, for example, of Latin dental-stems, where
sound-rules assimilate the <t> to the nominative <s> ending and it
isn't written. At least as late as Gaulish, there was some
distinction in sound made between final <-ts> and final <-s>, with
t-stem nominatives ending in a "barred d" (Lambert p.60) which
appears to have been used for a variety of non-basic dental sounds,
including affricates and fricatives (Evans p.419). So the
possibility seems still open for some sort of final cluster in this
situation in Ogham. The Old Irish forms don't give us strong
evidence, since this declensional group seems to regularly give us
duplicate forms, one apparently derived from the Oghamic nominative
and one from the non-nominative forms. Thurneysen (p.110, Sect.177) writes
that in absolute auslaut all
consonant groups containing <s> except <-rs> and <-ls> have been
lost, specifically, groups 'such as <-ks>, <-ts>, <-ns>, <-st>, which
had presumably fallen together with single <-s> at an earlier date'. He
adds that in Ogam inscriptions final <-s> is sometimes preserved and
sometimes not. It isn't entirely clear, but I get the impression that he's
putting the assimilation to /s/ early enough not to show up in Ogam. This
theory requires that all the parallel Latin inscriptions that
use final <x> in the nominative are either purely archaic holdovers,
or are consistently analogizing to the Latin velar-stem declension.
Either is possible -- especially the latter, I would think, but it
would be nice if he addressed that specifically. The lack of
nominative forms in the Ogham data makes it really difficult to argue
the point. So for the moment I'll go
with McManus's nominative as representing a written form, simply
because it gives a direction to jump.
|
58 | *Cattubuts | Cattubuttas | Cathbad, Cathub |
244 | *Coillabbots | Coillabbotas | Cóelbad, Coílboth, #Cóelub |
300 | *Cunanets | Cunanetas | Conne, [gen.] Connath |
9. Velar-stems. See McManus p.116. Called guttural stems by
Thurneysen. These present a similar problem to the dental stems. When
names in this group appear in Roman letters at a similar period, we see
nominative <-x>, representing <-cs>. (Similarly in Gaulish.)
With no Oghamic nominatives, we're left to guess at nominative <-cs>
genitive <-cas>.
The stem-consonant may be either <c> or <g> in the non-nominative
forms, but I have assumed that the latter devoices in the nominative
(as appears to be the case in Gaulish examples). Note that, as with
the dental-stem names, the Old Irish forms may derive from either the
nominative or non-nominative forms.
|
9a. Deuterotheme = gen. <-deccas>
|
263 | *Lugudeccs | Lugudeccas | Luguid |
9b. Deuterotheme = gen. <-veccas>
|
196 | *Ercaviccs | Ercaviccas | ? |
140 | *Luguvveccs | Luguvvecca | [gen.] Lugech |
250 | *Rittavvecs | Rittavvecas | [gen.]Rethech > Rethach > Ráthach | CISP gives the reading as <Rittuvvecas> compared to McManus'
<Rittaveccas>; O'Brien lists both <Rethach> and <Rathach> as
nominative forms, with genitive <Rethach> and <Retha>. It's tempting
to consider O'Brien's nominative <Rethu>, but I'm not solid enough
on the sound changes to have any confidence. |
9c. Deuterotheme = gen. <-rigas>
|
(xxi) | Cunorix (n) [Lat.] | *Cunorigas | Conri, #Conrí |
380 | *Icorics | Icorigas | ? |
|