Valens/Valentinus, Flora/Florinus and Marcus/Marcianus

[iskander]

and

[Secret Alias]

Now go and do some analysis rather than throwing up this undigested crud.

Unlike other people at the forum I am not here to 'win' stupid debates. I haven't even got through the list of cognomen of the Roman military and even a conservative assessment of the evidence would indicate that the situation was very fluid after the first century. The proper 'rules' that applied to the upper classes applying 'good Latin suffixes' does not appear to have been followed by the common man as a rule. For whatever reason (it is difficult to tell what the cause is) the -ianus suffix seems to have been applied in situations who wouldn't have expected.

Since you don't want to pursue this let me turn around and ask you another question completely. When for instance Irenaeus says that there was a heretic named Marcus, we would both agree that 'Marcus' was the praenomen of some individual (assuming of course that Irenaeus was actually referring to a historical individual). The followers of Marcus are given the name Μαρκώσιοι by Epiphanius. We don't know if this was appropriated from Irenaeus or made up by Epiphanius.

The question of course is whether - when we see the earliest Fathers inventing groups by merely fastening -ianus/iani in some manner on to the praenomen (Simoniani for instance) why the mention of Marciani and similar names shouldn't similarly derive their origin from a praenomen-based group identification. Irenaeus doesn't provide us with the heretics full name. We only know then by their praenomen. What rules can you see governing the development of praenomen-based group identification in Latin? The only evidence I see is that it was customary to slap -ianus/iani on to the name.

[Secret Alias]

Another source that says that Marcianus can come from Marcus, this time in German:

MARCIANUS: RISt 148 (Solva), 149/VI 14 (Coll. Cent. Solva). Es ist dies eines der häufigsten lat. Cognomina (Kajanto 35, 150). Marcianus ist entweder vom Praenomen Marcus oder vom Gentile Marcius abgeleitet (vgl. Kajanto 27).

Apparently Kajanto has the last word in recent scholarship in Latin cognomina having published numerous books on the subject even having a 'studies in honor of ...' in his name - https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&h ... &q=Kajanto

[Secret Alias]

And yes I can confirm that Kajanto the leading authority on Roman cognomen (he is cited everywhere) argues that the various cognomina were formed from the praenomen Marcus. In French:

La racine marca-42 (carte 2) Les noms formés sur la racine marca- sont sans doute des noms d'assonance, comme le proposait déjà Weisgerber43.
Il s'agit des gentilices Marcius/ a, et des surnoms Marcarii (au génitif), Marcellinus/a, Marcellianus, Marcellus/a, Marcia, Marcianus/a, Marcinus/a, Marcio(n), Marculus/a et Marcus/a. Selon Kajanto, ces gentilices ou surnoms sont formés sur le prénom Marcus44. Il faut toutefois faire remarquer que, en ce qui concerne Marcus, il semble peu probable que des Italiens de souche aient choisi comme cognomen ce qui est tout d'abord à Rome un prénom. https://books.google.com/books?id=y1poA ... MQ6AEIKDAA

As a side note, I don't know how English speaking people who can only work in English engage in research.

[Secret Alias]

Kajanto (as the name would suggest) is not German but Finnish http://www.uppslagsverket.fi/sv/sok/vie ... ajantoIiro

[Secret Alias]

The closest I can get for the evidence that led Kajanto to conclude that Marcianus could have been produced from the praenomen Marcus is contained here in this summary in Portuguese:

Marcianus (Marcius, Marcus) Segundo Kajanto (1965, pág. 150), Marcianus é cognomen derivado de um gentilicio (de Marcius). Cornudo, este mesmo autor sugere urna comparaçâo com o praenomen Marcus e apoma mesmo, como caso a ponderar, um Marcianus liberto de M. Tullius Cicero. E, noutro local (idem, ibidem, pág. 35), esclarece ser possível urna derivaçâo (directa) de Marcus, quer como praenomen, quer ainda como cognomen, salientando todavía a anterioridade deste último antropónimo como praenomen, donde por sua vez teria resultado o homófono e homógrafo cognomen (idem, ibidem, pág. 464); no entanto sugere ainda, entre Mars e Marcus, a forma Mart-co-s (Schulze, op. e loc. cit.), que Kajanto (1965, pág. 112) indica como 'Mart-cos, e Ernout/Meillet (1959, pág. 388, col. 1) como 'Mârti-co-s; estes últimos autores indicam ainda, como prova do à longo em 'Mârti-co-s, a documentada grafía Maarcus e ainda o oseo Maaoxos. Indicam também Marcus como base de Marcius e, a seguir, como base de Marcianus.

[spin]

Now go and do some analysis rather than throwing up this undigested crud.

Unlike other people at the forum I am not here to 'win' stupid debates.

Your approach was pissing me off no end, given that you kept regurgitating others' pronouncements without interacting with them at all. Looking for published opinions that support your views is not a fruitful one. You seem to have already decided what the reality is, given your repeated statements about the origin or significance of Marcianus and Marcion. You're gone on about the connection to Marcus as though it were a sure thing for so long, yet given no tangible basis for that certainty.

I'm generally disheartened by the methodologies I've seen on BC&H:

• the conversion of conjecture and the unfalsifiable into facts,
• the rehearsal of published views taken as fact without any sign of discernment or skill to discern,
• the persistent citation of pedestaled gurus (Ehrman, Eisenman, Acharya S, et al.),
• the increasingly vigorous defense of untenable positions (rather than their shelving),
• reductionist dichotomies (true or false, historical or mythical, history or fiction, christian or atheist),
• filtered facts,
• the appeals to common sense when dealing with uncommon topics,
• unwavering commitment to analytical frameworks that don't get analyzed,
• imperviousness to reason (think mm, aa & avi for example),
• and so on.

Galloping fucking hobby horses.

[Secret Alias]

So basically you're right unless ... what? I convince you you're wrong?

[Secret Alias]

Kajanto's tome on Latin cognomina had a six page review on Jstor. Six fucking pages where the main criticism was the reviewer didn't like the way he referenced things.

And unlike most "hobby horses" at the forum this is a completely esoteric subject. Who the fuck argues to the death the question of whether gentilic adjectives in Latin can or cannot be developed from praenomina?

As far as I can tell you the once self described "anarchist" are arguing for absolutely rigid rules for the formation of these adjectives. Why I have absolutely no idea when (a) you're a smart guy (b) you have great familiarity with ancient languages and (c) a guy who specializes in cogmenina says that Marcianus can be formed from either the praenomen Marcus or the nomen Marcius.

But maybe it's my turn to feel your wrath ...

[spin]

So basically you're right unless ... what? I convince you you're wrong?

No. I believe you need to justify your position with evidence, not the guff you've provided here. I don't have a position, other than regarding what seems to me to be the lack of evidence you evinced.