The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Life  % width posts: 88

Do Polish names generally have a meaning to them or a particular structure?.


jon357 66 | 17,078
16 Apr 2012 #61
I'm sorry, but it's not. Socio-economic standing is a corrollary to the practical trappings of nobility, not the definitive test. I'm sure that in England (and indeed elsewhere), there are nobles who live in penury. This doesn't make them any less noble.

It's a prerequisite - without the trappings, without the money, the status goes before the generation is out. Several times in history people have declined membership of the nobility because they felt they didn't have enough assets to guarantee that noble status is maintained throughout the generations. Somebody with a pretty coat of arms on their lavatory wall who works in the Town Hall isn't noble - they're just descended from noblemen.

All the Rights,none of the responsibilities,so,no,not Nobles just people who may or may not at one time have had a rich ancestor.

As usual, you've cut straight to the heart of the matter. They may have described themselves a 'working', 'landless', 'own-land-working', or degraded nobles, but in harsh reality, only the adjective is accurate - the noun is a mistranslation.

dietine deputies

Now you're getting closer....

. It is up to you to prove they were/are not nobles, and no, this is not a Russell's teapot type request.
Again, just because you say it is, doesn't make it so, and indeed, you are stepping into the realms of petition principii.

Proven lomg ago, and petition principii hardly fits!

It is fallacious to try to prove an argument as to the quality or otherwise of the subject based on hindsight. Be wary too of the fallacy of circular cause and consequence, vis a vis your reference to anarchy

That's pure nonsense, and you know it. The First Republic ended in disaster - you can be an apologist for it; you can talk about the avarice of neighbouring states, you can blame geopolitics, you can even look for weaknesses in the behaviour of Stanislaw August - but you can never avoid the incontrovertible fact that the First Republic had long ceased to function effectively as a state.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
16 Apr 2012 #62
It's a prerequisite - without the trappings, without the money, the status goes before the generation is out.

It's not a pre-requisite. The status of szlachta as nobles was legally enshrined. I am unfamiliar with any Act that prescribes a member of the szlachta having to hand in their noble status due to impecunity. You are familiar with the term Golota szlachta, aren't you.

Status is a social descriptor, but szlachta were not defined by their social mobility, rather their legal one. If you can find me a piece of genuine, contemporary evidence proving your position then it is vindicated. If you cannot, then you have lost the debate.

A Baron working in the Town Hall isn't noble - he's just descended from noblemen

When did he cease to be noble? Who is the arbiter and what is the benchmark test? Or is this just your opinion. In fact, it is your mere opinion because it's London to a brick that you have no evidence to back this opinion.

Now you're getting closer....

I'm not actually - re-reading my post, and your argument, I was misconceived in respect of Diet deputies. Do you know why?

Proven lomg ago, and petition principii hardly fits!

If it was 'proven long ago', then adduce the proof. Petitio principii is apt.

That's pure nonsense, and you know it.

No, I don't know it. You seem fairly confident it is though - why not pick it apart and show that it is nonsense, rather than merely asserting it is. You should have no trouble doing that.

The First Republic ended in disaster

Indeed it did. You're preaching to the converted. It is quite easy to point out the obvious, but a lot more difficult to properly analysis the context and causes of the decline. Why don't you tell us what caused the fall of the Cth?
Des Essientes 7 | 1,291
16 Apr 2012 #63
Are you lot still blabbing on? lol

It is understandable that the OP would be surprised about how his thread, which he just started to get a surname for a Polish character in a work of fiction, so ballooned out in a discussion of the proper English word to denote the Polish szlachta, but those who know this forum will realize that here it is merely another occurrence of an Englishman wanting to demean Poland and so he claims that Poland never had a "genuine" nobility. This claim is ridiculous as most Indo-European societies have understood nobility, from time immemorial, to be a military caste with special rights and privileges. It's rather simple really and there is nothing "romantic" about calling the Polish szlachta noblemen, but jon, in an hilariously sad and patronizing way, wants to claim otherwise and argues that the English word "nobility" designates people far above any mere Poles:

It's tempting - especially for someone today whose ancesters were szlachta (Freemen) to draw that distinction, however it is essentially imposing a comparison with other cultures who have a genuine nobility and romanticising a past that was far from romantic. Norman Davies describes the situation rather well.

The above quote is hilariously sad because he invokes Norman Davies who uses the very word "nobility" to refer to the szlachta in the history he's written! Alligator pointed this out to jon:

In "God's Playground" he is using "nobility" as an exact word to describe szlachta. If you read his book as you claim, we shouldn't disscuss this.

The argument should have ended there, but jon, being without any shame, keeps up his silly attempt deny that Poland had noblemen and instead continues to insist that she had mere "freemen". The truth is that Poland did indeed have freemen and that these were people who did not possess szlachta status but were not serfs, the latter being people who were owned by members of the szlachta. If in England the people possessing freeman status had to serve in the military, then so much the worse for those poor old sods (oh Angleterre, oh Auqalung!). In Poland ,and in many other Indo-European societies, freemen were free from this responsibility, but just because freemen had military duties in England does not make the Polish szlachta the equivalent of "freemen". Of course Alligator, and others, had already demolished jon's foolish argument but another Englishman comes to his aid:

All the Rights,none of the responsibilities,so,no,not Nobles

Hahahaha! The patronizing message from England is: "Poland you cannot use our word "nobles" for your szlachta because your szlachta just weren't responsible enough." Do these Englishmen believe that they are Poland's parents? "Son you cannot use the car because you haven't shown yourself to be responsible enough" Hahahaha! This is absolutely absurd, but according to jon, Isthatu has:

As usual, you've cut straight to the heart of the matter.

The real "heart of the matter" actually being a display of how silly some English people can be.

YEAH! HAHAHAHAHA! Des, are you a robot?

You find laughter robotic? I do not. It serves a great purpose in our world. This world contains sad people that want to insist on self-aggrandizing false hierarchies, and so they build their phantasmagorical pyramids. Jon and Isthatu want to claim that their country's social pyramid was higher than Poland's. "See England had higher levels! England had Gentlemen and Nobility, but Poland oh she is lower. She topped off at mere Freemen". This is absolutely pathetic and indeed it is funny too, and so I laugh. The power of laughter rumbles and shakes down these silly conceptual pyramids. It deflates gasbags.
jon357 66 | 17,078
16 Apr 2012 #64
"See England had higher levels! England had Gentlemen and Nobility, but Poland oh she is lower. She topped off at mere Freemen".

One day, you'll actually understand a post here without attributing some psychologically strange and emotionally loaded meaning.
Ironside 50 | 10,940
16 Apr 2012 #65
One day, y

Do you deny Polish nobles the very name of nobility ? I though we were discussion Polish unique system not whether they could be called nobles or not.
jon357 66 | 17,078
17 Apr 2012 #66
I though we were discussion Polish unique system not whether they could be called nobles or not.

We were, and they can't. Nobility is an English word. Most of the szlachta were not noblemen.
Des Essientes 7 | 1,291
17 Apr 2012 #67
Most of the szlachta were not noblemen.

Jon382 is wrong, because all of the szlachta were noblemen.
jon357 66 | 17,078
17 Apr 2012 #68
We've established already that they weren't, and no amount of semantics or misused philosophical jargon can change that.
Alligator - | 261
17 Apr 2012 #69
You and who exactly?
I agree with Ozi Dan and Des Essientes.

Status is a social descriptor, but szlachta were not defined by their social mobility, rather their legal one. If you can find me a piece of genuine, contemporary evidence proving your position then it is vindicated. If you cannot, then you have lost the debate.

Des Essientes 7 | 1,291
17 Apr 2012 #70
We've established already that they weren't

Only in your warped mind has this been "established".

semantics

You are the one who it trying to truncate the meaning of the word "nobility". Sane people that speak English know full well that the Polish szlachta as a ruling class invested with military duties, and given special rights and privileges, was most certainly nobility.
De_Charlus - | 3
17 Apr 2012 #71
certainly nobility.

Nobility is of its very essence the province of all who are free in spirit. The Golden Perfection of Poland can ne'er compromise itself by mere history, but only by a concatenation of scoundrels without understanding of Her unique privileges.
Ironside 50 | 10,940
17 Apr 2012 #72
Nobility is an English word. Most of the szlachta were not noblemen.

Well from the point of view of Polish not-noblemen most of western or eastern nobles were not real nobles or not fully nobles because of them being sheets any monarch could wipe his ass with !

Sure Polish system was unique as was Polish feudalism (if we may use that word) unique but basically noblemen originated as a fighting elite of a country with rights and duties and their code of honor and their land. All European nobles and aristocracy stem from that! Many countries had their own variation on the theme, Polish one was more interesting than some.

Coming to conclusion that Polish nobles were not nobles it is nonsense !
rozumiemnic 8 | 3,958
17 Apr 2012 #73
the Polish szlachta as a ruling class invested with military duties, and given special rights and privileges, was most certainly nobility.

that's what wiki says...

why is everyone getting so hot under the collar about this?
De_Charlus - | 3
17 Apr 2012 #74
i am always surprised how they cought up with europe

They coughed up Europe because of the coprophagy you so pertinently imply. Of fresh blood was there none - the Golden Polish Nobleman on his estate would send no serfs to mate with the horsefaced islanders. Hahahaha
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
17 Apr 2012 #75
We've established already that they weren't, and no amount of semantics or misused philosophical jargon can change that.

You were invited to adduce proof to back up your flawed proposition and you failed to do so. I told you that if you did, your position would be vindicated, but because of the failure of the former, the latter is extinguished. Merely asserting and professing indignation that 'semantics' and 'philosophical jargon' have been used to wrongly rebut your assumption, is, without proof of same, mischievous and disingenuous, as is your argument as a whole that Polish nobility (szlachta) were not noble by virtue of some vacuous claim by analogy to English Freemen and other nebulous and fantastic criteria.

I don't mean to be critical, but you have been outsmarted and have lost the argument.

I appreciate that you attempt to give the impression on this forum of having been everywhere and done everything, and of being a CJonfucius on all matters Polish, but wisdom (ie knowing not to defend the indefensible) is the hallmark of sagacious counsel, not acerbic wit smattered with a few droplets of anecdote and anachronisms. Go in peace to avoid further embarrassment, and learn from your mistakes.
jon357 66 | 17,078
17 Apr 2012 #76
You were invited to adduce proof to back up your flawed proposition and you failed to do so.

On the contrary.

your position

rebu

And more of the same.

I don't mean to be critical, but you have been outsmarted and have lost the argument.

Very far from that. Nobility is nobility - the majority of the szlachta were not. They didn't fit the socio-economic model, they were unable to sustain themselves as a privileged group, and their numbers were too large even to be a viable elite.

I notice that you're trolling has taken a different turn from usual - this time you're trying to emulate the pompous language of Dessie etc.

It doesn't make your point stronger - it just dresses it up differently.

Czerwinski

Out of interest, where does Dzierzynski come from. The wikipedia entry on Feliks Dzierzynski uses the phrase 'purportedly polish szlachta'.
isthatu2 4 | 2,704
17 Apr 2012 #77
Out of interest, where does Dzierzynski come from.

From the pits of hell,either Judea or Moscow obviously !!!!!
( too subtle? )
Seriously,pass, nasty man where ever he came from.
p3undone 8 | 1,135
17 Apr 2012 #78
I think any one who claims nobility is by definition,a snob.They think that because of wealth and the the ability to control people

monetarily this makes them noble.It is more noble to help than oppress.That's the way I believe.
isthatu2 4 | 2,704
17 Apr 2012 #79
of your stupid patronizing claims about the szlachta makes you look like fools.

And your defence of a bunch of medieval rich boys lording it over the majority of a population kept as slaves into the 18th/19th century makes a mockery of your whole fake liberal pseudo intelkshual personna ...privelage on the basis of fluke of Birth....wierd fekking thing for any self respecting American (or Austrailian) to cheer on IMHO.

Those were freemen without the rights and privileges of the szlachta but you want to claim they are equivocal

Again, your defence of Polands system is ,well, laughable.
So, freemen,who had the right to do what they want,go to war or stay at home and raise sheep who chose to go to war in defence of the realm are lesser men than so called nobles who HAD to go to war when they were told? No, I dont claim them as equals I call them as the lesser men.

Well from the point of view of Polish not-noblemen most of western or eastern nobles were not real nobles or not fully nobles because of them being sheets any monarch could wipe his ass with !

And I have already shown this is utter garbage in a previous post,at least when it comes to the nobility on the British isles. So re posting just shows again your lack of understanding and lumping of all your rather odd preconceptions of europe into either Poland or not poland.....plum. As I said, there was never a period in English history when any *nobles* were so servile. Have you never heard the term Primus inter pares? Any british King who thought he was above the Law soon found out he wasnt.

Poland was not playing "catch up".

Dessi dearest, its your own negative view of Poland that brings you to the conclusion that *playing catch up* was in any way an insult to Poland. Its just a simple statement of fact. Poland was on the edge of Europe,had never been a part of Rome and came to the European/Christianity party very late. If anything the *catch up* played by Poland was amazingly fast and not being a carbon copy of the west was far better adapted to Polands needs.
boletus 30 | 1,366
17 Apr 2012 #80
Out of interest, where does Dzierzynski come from. The wikipedia entry on Feliks Dzierzynski uses the phrase 'purportedly polish szlachta'.

Feliks Edmundowicz Dzierżyński was born on 9.11.1877 in the family estate Dzierżynowo (Stołbce County, now in Belarus, Дзяржынава; Rus. Дзержиново). It used to be known as Oziembłowo, and it has its name changed only after the birth of Feliks. The estate was small, numbering a total of 180 acres, including the manor house and the serfdom-based farm.

The manor house was reconstructed in 1972 and renovated in 2004. Alexander Lukashenko participated in its re-opening. Today it is a small village consisting of the ruins of the manor and of Dzierżyńskis' farm. The whole complex "Dzierżynowo" obtained the status of cultural-historical monument of Belarus.

The nearby city of Dzierżyńsk, named in honour of our great countryman and served by the railway station Kajdanowo [Shacklestown - sic!], is NOT the birthplace of Feliks Edmundowicz.

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzier%C5%BCynowo

More about his father, a Polish "szlachcic" here:
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Dzier%C5%BCy%C5%84ski
Ironside 50 | 10,940
17 Apr 2012 #81
Nobility is nobility - the majority of the szlachta were not. They didn't fit the socio-economic model, they were unable to sustain themselves as a privileged group, and their numbers were too large even to be a viable elite.

Nonsense! Whose model they didn't fit? They were perfectly able to sustain themselves. I think that you are focusing too much on the XVIII century.

One again, nonsense. The fact that there were many considerably poor nobles doesn't change the fact that there were many well off and quite few whose lands and fortunes on par with some independent countries in Europe. Not to mention Spanish hidalgo poor but proud noblemen, or French owners of titles pigsty and ruins of castle, proud nobles as well, For your country, somebody father could be living in poverty and forced to work for food but his son could be a heir to estate and title, would that make him less noble, eh?

I think you are annoying on purpose.

And I have already shown this is utter garbage in a previous post,at least when it comes to the nobility on the British isles. So re posting just shows again your lack of understanding and lumping of a

You have show nothing ! The systems were as different as they come due to the fact that Polish knights evolved into citizens of the nobles republic in the XVI century whereas English knights dissolved into aristocracy, land-gentry and freeman each with distinguish rights.

The forum is not place to analyse what happened in the curse of next two centuries.
However your claim that your are not boasting whose medieval boys were batter is empty cause that exactly what you are doing.So let me tell you something - **** off ! Our nobles were free citizens, and your monarch could done away with your, at lest before rebellion of Cromwell when they installed elicits protestant regime with monarch as pimple on the a...!

We had President called King and free elections - stuff it in your crack pipe and smoke it MR pot!

Calm down, Iron.
isthatu2 4 | 2,704
18 Apr 2012 #82
Cromwell

17th century, Ive already told you *our* Kings were controlled and First among equals for around a thousand years before that.
Prior to that the same was true of the Brithannic Chieftens, men elected to lead not just entitled by birth,even when entitlement by Birth came in *our* Kings were getting deposed left right and centre since the late 11th century.

As the Mod said irons, calm down dear, its only history, its not as though you or I had anything whatsoever to do with it......
Ironside 50 | 10,940
19 Apr 2012 #83
Ive already told you *our* Kings were controlled and First among equals for around a thousand years before that.

I said already to you, generations for thousand of years are not possible, also in medieval times for Europe the fact that Kings were depended on their barons and knights is a truth for all Europe. You are not discovering American here.

When talking about specifically about without referring to them as knight or barons nobles we tend to think about timetable form the XVI century upwards.

Prior to that the same was true of the Brithannic Chieftens, men elected to lead not just entitled by birth,even when entitlement by Birth came in *our* Kings were getting deposed left right and centre since the late 11th century.

hardly nobles ! typical freedom people in tribes, also quite typical in the northern Europe for that period and social order.

As the Mod said irons, calm down dear, its only history, its not as though you or I had anything whatsoever to do with it......

You said that you are not making comparison or evaluation of nobles form both countries, and then slam you are doing what you said you are do not doing. - that one !

Again you make a total mas from the subject discussed. Your examples are just unordered mess of amassed fact and opinions having no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand. - that two!

In your edition is not even history but collection of interesting stories,, few facts from the past and gossip.
isthatu2 4 | 2,704
20 Apr 2012 #84
In your edition is not even history but collection of interesting stories

Thats all History is dumb dumb.....

Your examples are just unordered mess of amassed fact

Yes,ironside, FACTS. Unlike your OPINIONS.
Ironside 50 | 10,940
20 Apr 2012 #85
Thats all History is dumb dumb.....

Nope you are dumb dumb ....
Seriously the fact is you have no clue, you have your opinions,

Yes,ironside, FACTS. Unlike your OPINIONS

Facts and opinions my Yorick. I have no issue with facts, problems is that you present here facts, opinions and then your opinions.
isthatu2 4 | 2,704
20 Apr 2012 #86
problems is that you present here facts, opinions and then your opinions.

erm,yes I do.
You however just spout out the opinions of others based on what exactly? The linear aproach to education so beloved by nations who have little history of innovation I guess.....

You seem to have this weird idea that there is an ultimate *truth* in History, good luck finding it.
Ironside 50 | 10,940
20 Apr 2012 #87
erm,yes I do.

I have no problem with facts, nor opinions (of others, you present) even if some are debatable, I do have problem when you armed with few opinion you found in books and come up with the opinion of your own extraction.

More often than not you are wrong.

You seem to have this weird idea that there is an ultimate *truth* in History, good luck finding it.

Not necessary truth but the inner logic and order. You seem to think that it is a wild-field anybody can roam free !

You however just spout out the opinions of others based on what exactly

In this thread ? I presented you with facts, you claimed that some freedoms in the middle-ages and during tribal times were inclusive for England or the British Isles. I just proved you wrong.

The linear aproach to education so beloved by nations who have little history of innovation I guess.....

Jumping to and fro like a mad frog doesn't make your approach innovative but rather mush-mushy. What are you imply? Poles and no innovations ? Have you been bitten by a mad flea ?

Anyway whats linear education ? If you meant linear approach to history it only further illustrate that you have no clue. Nothing we discussed in this thread has anything to do with linear history.
pawian 176 | 14,299
4 Jan 2021 #88
I want to give her a Polish last name but I have no idea!

The real test for a real Polish surname is if a foreigner is able to pronounce it. Once King Elbow was suppressing a German rising in Krakow in the 4th century and each insurgent who couldn`t pronounce a few Polish words was executed as an alien and hostile element.

In post no 2 somebody proposed a famous surname Brzęczyszczykiewicz. But that`s film fiction.

How about a real one: Błaszczykiewicz.


Home / Life / Do Polish names generally have a meaning to them or a particular structure?.
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.