Name help...

[AJBryant]

"no" is only part of the name when the name is spoken. When it is written, it is left out, but is understood to be there.

Sorry, button pushed.

That's wrong. That's patently wrong. Look in any Japanese historical dictionary or encyclopedia, and in the reading of the name you'll see a 'no" in there. It's not written in knaji because that's not the way it's done, but written in the syllabary, or written in English, it's there. Otherwise, no one would know to say it.

I recently had to explain this to some heralds, and the lightbulb went off. They've been messing kanji writing methodology with English writing methodology, and screwed up totally.

Now, in point of fact, the "no" is only used in certain names during certain periods. It vanished around the 1300s, when these names finally slipped from the realm of "great house" to " just a surname".

It would only be used with locatives or occupational terms functioning as bynames (e.g., Jiro of Mutsu or Saburo the Painter).


Tony

[Masahide]

AJBryant said:

Sorry, button pushed.

Don't be sorry. I like to learn!

That's wrong. That's patently wrong. Look in any Japanese historical dictionary or encyclopedia, and in the reading of the name you'll see a 'no" in there. It's not written in knaji because that's not the way it's done, but written in the syllabary, or written in English, it's there. Otherwise, no one would know to say it.

I recently had to explain this to some heralds, and the lightbulb went off. They've been messing kanji writing methodology with English writing methodology, and screwed up totally.

This may come from the fact that "Name Construction in Mediaeval Japan" specifically states you don't write the "no" in names, and that it is understood. This is the primary name source (and for most of the COH, the only name source) that is used for Japanese names. At this point, the COH will not register a name with "no" in it, and will return it for rework.

Now, in point of fact, the "no" is only used in certain names during certain periods. It vanished around the 1300s, when these names finally slipped from the realm of "great house" to " just a surname".

It would only be used with locatives or occupational terms functioning as bynames (e.g., Jiro of Mutsu or Saburo the Painter).

I guess that means that the COH will have to be reeducated by the unlucky person who wants to register a pre-1300's name with "no" or a locative or occupational by name. They are going to have to provide a lot however, unless Lady Solvig updates her book to include this information (I don't think that is likely, not because she won't want to, but probably because of low demand printing, etc).

The sad thing with this is that the COH often gets an idea in their head, there is no shifting them. This is especially true of non-Western European heraldry, as the supporting documentation are not in English. So whoever wants to get something through like this will have to do a lot of research work, etc. (But it is possible, just a pain). I had a similar problem when I tried to register a dragon's scale as a charge (in a mon), because it has been decided that dragon's scales are not period. Of course this is as it applies to Western heraldry, but due to a lack of documentation, I chose to roll with the blow instead of fighting city hall.

I guess my overall view is that if you want a name with "no" and don't want to, or can't, document it appropriately to get the COH to change its stance, don't worry about it. Register it without the "no" and then just write it, and use it with the "no." It isn't like there is a "heraldry police" that will fine or censure you or anything.

Same thing for mon. If the COH won't let you register it (cause it doesn't fit the Western format), they won't let anyone else register it either. So just use the darn thing. This will only really get you in trouble if you are in a Kingdom that requires a registered device, or in the process of registering one, to participate in Crown or the like. In that case, you can register something, but primarily use something else (it isn't like that device will get used or displayed if you are king... after all you use the kingdom's arms.)

Masahide

[Hiroyuki]

thanks again Masahide, your paragraphs will be of much service to me when I actually try to register my name...

After reading the above, I'm understanding that a samurai of my time period(early to mid 16th century) would not have used the no?

What in regards to the yobina? Any luck on the "only son" wording for a yobina?

[AJBryant]

After reading the above, I'm understanding that a samurai of my time period(early to mid 16th century) would not have used the no?

Correct -- unless you are using a locative ("of XYZ") or occupational ("the XYZ") you wouldn't have "no" in there at that point.

What in regards to the yobina? Any luck on the "only son" wording for a yobina?

Ummm... think about it. When you have a kid, how do you know there won't be more? The only thing for "only son" is "first son."

Tony

[raito]

AJBryant said:

Ummm... think about it. When you have a kid, how do you know there won't be more? The only thing for "only son" is "first son."

Tony

Uhh, mother died in childbirth...

That said, I use what I please without herald's interference, because when I joined up, it took 10 years for the CoH to let you know that they'd lost your submission (but the checks always cleared).

[Please Delete]

I'm not positive, but I believe that the birth order might have to do more with the father than the mother. Hiraizumi-sensei? I'd appreciate clarification if you know, but if the mother died, then the father could still have more children by another woman. Probably also depends on things like period, rank, etc.

-Ii

[AJBryant]

Uhh, mother died in childbirth...

Dad could remarry. Or have kids with a secondary wife or concubine. Heck, even a maid. Yoshitsune was "Kurou" (9th-son) -- you don't think his momma had all nine sons, do ya?

Ii-dono -- Bingo. (Bungo. Bizen...)