4: Nadežda ze Zastrizl -New Correction of Name Change
OSCAR is unable to find the name, either registered or submitted.
Old Item: Nadežda ze Zastrzizl, to be released.
When this was intered into the LoI http://oscar.sca.org/index.php?action=145&id=15329 it was accidently misspelled, it was intended to be sent up as <Nadežda ze Zastrizl>. Since changes had been made to the given name and article in Kingdom the change to the byname was not noticed as being out of the ordinary since it was also one of the forms recommended in the Internal commentary.
The submitter would prefer the spelling <Zastrizl> over the registered spelling.
Documentation and Commentary from original submission:
<ze Zastrizl> http://www.zastrizly.cz
All this page actually tells us is that there is a Czech place whose modern name is <Zástřizly>. According to <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%A1st%C5%99izly>, the first documentary mention of the place is from 1349, when it was in the possession of the family <Zástřizl>. <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%A1st%C5%99izl> goes further and says that the lords were <Artleb> and <Bozek ze
Zástřizl>. Neither gives references, but with some work I was able to track down the mention in question. It's in the Tabulae Terrae Moraviae, in Die Landtafel des Markgrafthumes Mähren, P. Ritter von Chlumecky, Joseph Chytil, Carl Demuth, and A. Ritter von Wolfskron, <http://books.google.com/books?id=8KdLAAAAYAAJ>, p.6, nr. 142:
Artleb de Zastrziel vnit se cum Borcone fratre suo cum
omnibus que habent vbicumque.
<Borcone> is the Latin oblique case of <Borco>; in the index entry for <Borco> on p. iv the name is identified as <Bořek>, a pet form of <Bořivoj>; <Bozek> in the German Wikipedia article is apparently an error for <Bořek>. (<Artleb> is a borrowing of German <Hartlieb>.)
On p. 29 (nr. 591) and p. 77 (nr. 369) of the same source we find the name as <de Zastrzil> 1358, 1373, and on p. 55 (nr. 1118) as <de Zastrzl> 1368. A document of 1402 in Codex Diplomaticus et Epistolaris Moraviæ, Vincenz Brandl, ed., Brünn, 1897, has <de Zastrzizl> twice. <http://books.google.com/books?id=2qUDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA245>
All of these are in Latin contexts. A German inscription of 1582 has <von Zastrzizl>. <http://smircikrize.euweb.cz/Ceska_Republika/Uherske_Hradiste/Buchlovice.html>
The same spelling without the preposition occurs in a German language document of 1612, which mentions a <frau Bohuschin Zastrzizl>; she is identified in a footnote in modern Czech othography as <Bohunka Morkovská ze Zástřizl>.
<http://is.muni.cz/th/74286/ff_m/Diplomova_prace_Brezikova.doc>, p. 48.
It would be nice, however, to have a form from a period Czech language document. It's not difficult to find any number of respectable sites showing that <ze Zástřizl> is the modern Czech form of the byname (e.g., the reference to a <Smil ze Zástřizl> living in 1435 at <http://www.breznik.cz/index.php?id_menu=historie&id_text=vlastiveda>, and to a <Jaroslav ze Zástřizl> living in 1547 at <http://books.google.com/books?id=TMUnAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA166>).
However, Czech orthography has undergone major changes over time, so it's not safe to assume that this form is appropriate.
Since the name in question is known only from the 14th century and later, I'll ignore the very small amount of earlier written Czech. In the 14th century the sounds of Czech that weren't found in Latin were represented by digraphs (pairs of letters), much the way English uses <sh>, <ch>, and <th>. The specific system was similar to that of modern Polish, though by no means identical.
In what follows I'll write <c^>, <e^>, <r^>, <s^>, and <z^> for Da'ud notation č, ě, ř, š, and ž (i.e., for <c>, <e>, <r>, <s>, and <z> with háchek/caron), and I'll write <S> for long-s. There were many inconsistencies, but the following table shows the general pattern for the earlier and later 14th century: the first column gives the modern spellings, and the other two give the usual 14th century spellings.
s---------zz-----------s, S, SS
e^--------ie, ye-------ie, ye
r^--------rs, rS, rz---rz, rs, rS
s^--------SS-----------SS, s, S
[ignore the ---- I had to put those in to get Talan's table to be readable.]
Long vowels were not marked at that time, so <Zastrzizl> is exactly what we might expect in the later 14th century. The spellings <Zastrziel>, <Zastrzil>, and <Zastrzl> correspond to modern <Zástr^iel>, <Zástr^il>, and <Zástr^l>.
Early in the 15th century someone, probably Jan Hus, suggested using diacritics instead of digraphs, marking long vowels with an acute accent (as is done today) and marking the so-called 'soft' consonants with an overdot (instead of
the modern háchek/caron). I'm not sure just when during the next two centuries the háchek replaced the overdot, and even as late as 1600 there were some fairly consistent differences from modern Czech spelling. Moreover, as you
might expect, the digraphic system didn't disappear overnight: a Czech language example from 1580 can be seen at <http://books.google.com/books?id=7KsDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA93>, with <Proczka Starssyho ze Zastrzyzl>, with <cz>, <ss>, and <rz> for modern <c^>, <s^>, and <r^>, respectively. However, in the preceding and following documents, also from 1580, the name is spelled <z Zástr^izl> and <z Zástr^ízl>.
If the name <Nadezhda> was used, we might reasonably expect to see it as <Nadiezda> or <Nadyezda>, or perhaps <Nadiesda> or <Nadyesda> in the early 14th century.
If the combination is allowed (and that's properly Pelican's decision), I recommend using <Nadiezda> or <Nadyezda> for the forename and <ze Zastrzizl> or <z(e) Zástr^izl> for the surname.