Talk:Clan Napier

Observation
My Dear Lee Napier

It amuses me that you have so promptly removed my explanation of the etymology of the surname Napier. I assure you that it is correct! You have neither the knowledge nor the understanding of the subject to judge my submission! In time, when you cool off and reread what was written you may gain further understanding.

If you chose to run from the truth then feel free to do so, I will not pursue you. The world is full of surprises. All people live in a little fairyland world of their own, they are happy there.

Regards.

--Antone1 (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The assumption that the name Napier is either french or polish is not a new assumption, and while there is documented evidence that the name is of scottish extraction, there has never been any evidence proffered of french or polish extraction. I assure you this is a very old debate, with which I am quite familiar.  Should you be able to provide some proper citation to support your claim to a polish etymology of the name, then by all means return your assertion to the article.  As it was, it represents original research and as such has no place in the article. - LeeNapier (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

From Anthony

Thank you for your reply and gentlemanly offer. The claim that the word Napier is Polish is not an assumption, it is obvious. This obviosness would not be apparent however, unless you actually spoke Polish, I assume you do not. No problem. It is of interst to me that you state that this clain is not new, I had not discussed this issue with anybody before. However you have informed me that others had been claiming the link and I am not surprised. However the area of etymology which I love is exceedingly complex and can easily lead one astray. As such it is a tantalising challenge.

The work I suppose could be classified as “original research” although one then has to contend with the proposition, “is that which is obvious, established by research”? In addition it appears that it may be the only work!

Further on the matter, the religious basis to Slovonic in general, is something that the whole Slovonic world is by and large oblivious of, given that the ancient faith was intensively supressed by Christianity. Indeed in the universities, controlled by the Catholic church the pre christian era continues to be, with possibly archeology the only exception. This does not give you languistic analysis that is properly based.

The etymologists of course play the same game and supress what knowledge they have, although most are blissfully oblivious of the religious link and do not investigate. Their work I would classify as naïve as a result. The same applies to languages that are not Polish, so this is indeed a new direction.

I have checked Alexander Brukner, Słownik etymologiczny języka Polskiego and he knows nothing of the rationale that I have presented and he is an authority in the area, now deceased. Nobody to my knowledge has analysed the word Napier as a surname.

Now I would like to clarify my approach in this context.

I did not claim that there was a Polish Napier as an ancestor. I have been aware of the Polishness of the Name for quite some time and I always assumed a Polish ancestor until, I read your article.

From your article it is clear, you have provided me with an explanation and further confirmation yourself, that the name NAPIER was given as a result of “a stand in the face of an attack” which made some on the Napier side yield, all except this man! I quote!

"Alexander the then King of Scots having wars did concreate his lieges in the battle, amongst whom he that commanded was the Earl of Lennox (keeping his eldest son at home) sent his second son to serve for him with the forces that were under his command. This battle went hard with the Scots, for the enemy >>>pressing furiously<<< upon them forced them to give ground until at last the fell to flat running away which being perceived by Donald he pulled his father's standard from the bearer thereof and valiantly encountering the foe being well followed by the Earl of Lennox's men,

>>>he repulsed [ODPARŁ – od-PAR-l] the enemy and changed the fortune of the day<<<,

whereby a great victory was got. After the battle as the manor is everyone advancing and setting forth his own acts the King said unto them "Ye have all done well but there is one amongst you who hath Na peer," and calling Donald into his presence he commanded him in regard of his worthy service and in augmentation of his honour to change his name from Lenox to Napier, and gave him the lands of Gosford and lands in Fife and made him his own servant, which discourse is confirmed by sundry of my old evidencies and testimonies wherein we are called Lenox alias Napier.

I have had further look at this matter.

“One theory holds that a “naperer” is "a person in charge of table linen in a royal or manor house” and that the original Napiers must have been “naperers” from England or France. The other theory is that the name Napier is a derivative spelling of “Nae Peer.” ”

1	I would readily dismiss the theory that Napier is derived from “naperer” as it does not have any specificity of renoun or glory (or Slava) as we Poles would have it. Logically the name “Napier” is based on “extraordinary valour” and the glory of it and this is the only relevant basis.

2	The second theory that the name Napier may come from a convolution “Na Peer” is a plausible one, as it has the “glory” rationale!!! Na-Peer given that the Scotts have their own way with the Enlish language could in fact be written “Na Pier”. There are two ways of pronouncing Pier:

The “i” rendered as “i” in (i)n, short hard sound. The “e” rendered as “e” in (e)nter, short hard sound

If one then pronounces it as indicated above we get Na-pi-er which comes out as Napiyer due to ease of pronunciation requirements. This can very quickly convolute as Naypyer, rendering this in standard English. The same pronunciation “Naypyer” is achieved by the spelling “Napier” because the “a” is in English is automatically convoluted as an “ay” as is the “e” as “ye”. This makes the “y’s” redundant.

So here are the two ways of pronouncing this term Napier. The English pronunciation of Napier is Naypyer while the Polish is Napyer. The “a” is a short hard pure vowel in Polish.

On this basis I would find the word Napier as a rendition of Na-peer <> Napier, totally plausible. I did not get a sufficient focus on it the first time.

3	Why does the word look so obviously Polish? It is absolutely related to the stand that was made in battle, ie “Naparł na wroga!” The enemy “naparli - thrust” upon them and Donald “naparł – trust” back. This makes him a Napieralski, or a Napier, as he who thrusts against the enemy!

The word belongs to the domain of Pierun the God of war, which is so appropriate here. The word element is “PER <> PIER”, hence dressing the word element up with suffixes and prefixes you get the specific term “Napier”, here just a prefix is used. Other words which are part of the Piorun vocabulary are, Piorun the thunderbolt, Prać (Prat) to beat or strike and Prąd for a current or electric current, “the current thrusts”.

The other word which I quoted as an independent confirmation of the Slovonic nature of the word is the fact that the following phrase is used. I quote! “John Napier of >>>Rusky<<<, the 3rd Laird of Merchiston was killed, in service to the king, leading the Clan Napier at the Battle of Sauchieburn on June 11, 1488.” Where on earth did “Rusky” come from! This link to Slovonic I deemed to be a hard confirmation of the Slovonic basis to the word. Do you have any information?

"Alexander the then King of Scots having wars did concreate his lieges in the battle,…” Dated the 1st day of June A.D. 1625. Signed Archibald Napier of Merchiston."

What link is there between Alexander ( the name Alexander is Polish! <> Alex Ander <>Waleks Wander <> Waleczny Wandal, the Warrior Vandal ) and the Slovonic language. Did he speak Polish or Russian? How come he knew that Napier is an appropriate term to glorify one of his men with the phrase "he who makes a decisive stand in battle"? The noble houses were closely related as ever, but are there any known links here?

This is fascinating.

I await your reply with mounting interest.

--Antone1 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC) --Antone1 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Anthony, I think LeeNapier would like some references to back up the etymology you suggest. Follow that link he posted for Wikipedia's definition of 'original research'. Maybe you have access to a French or Polish book that you can quote from? Unless you can find something credible that says what you suggest, i think the 'fact'—however 'obvious' it is—is still considered 'original research' here on Wikipedia.--Celtus (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at this link: Ancestry.com, citing Dictionary of American Family Names has the Scottish name as an occupational name for a naperer. The name is also a shortened form of the Polish Napieral or a similar name. No mention of the 17th century 'Na peer' story. The Polish etymology doesn't mean the Scottish family can or do derive their name from a Polish name, just that some Napiers in fact do.--Celtus (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this on the origines of the name (The Scottish Nation Or the Surnames, Families, Literature, Honours and Biographical History of the People of Scottland: Or. The Surnames, Families, Literature, Honours, and Biographical History of the People of Scotland)

I highlighted the text The name was originally Le Naper, as this point may be important to the discussion above. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Napier etymology cont
After all the trouble I went to explain my analysis it seems I am totally misunderstood. The work could well be described as original research, unfortunately it appears I’m then only man living with this sort of knowledge. The earlier article I have written has already answered most of the issues you bring to bear in the later posts! The article I have written is not a casual opinion but rigorous argument and needs to be studied, unfortunately.

With respect to references I have looked at etymological dictionaries and they just don’t address the issue. See above. I have stressed that the link to a Pole is obvious, on a casual basis! However if there are other facts which are plausible they must be considered.

You mean to tell me that the Nae Peer story is a tall story, I am shocked! I’m looking for hard data and facts! The reason I’m using the discussion pages is because there isn’t consensus on the matter, I don’t like thrusting my views onto people if they disagree. I seek to resolve the matter by consensus. When I wrote my first post it was promptly deleted as nonsense. Yet these new posts support my original stand?

In order to resolve these interesting matters we need to approach the matter thoroughly. I have looked at four factors:

1	I have dismissed the napkin theory as trivial as a basis to naming a mighty warrior! Of course if the mighty warrior is fiction..?? I personally prefer the mighty warrior version. 2	I have shown that the Nae Peer basis can in fact be rendered as Napier by standard linguistic methods, I call them ‘laws of convolution’. It’s plausible linguistically but is it historically true? It has a suitably glorious basis. 3	Thirdly I have accepted the proposition that there was no Polish ancestor. Now you tell me that you expect there is? This is of course the easiest explanation. If there is no Polish ancestor then a reason for the “apparent Polish usage” needs to be found. Eg Nae Peer. 4	Fourthly there is this “John Napier of >>> Rusky <<<, the 3rd Laird of Merchiston was killed”. This RUSKY is a Slovonic link. Where did that come from??

I hope this makes things a little clearer. I find this debate and the subject fascinating. Czar Brodie (I cant help it, but are you a Pole, Czar means Charm in Polish???) am I surrounded by Poles pretending to be Scots, do I blame Bonnie Prince Charlie? The question I have is what stand does LeeNapier say since he challenged me in the first place?

--Antone1 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still say the same thing - your work, however fascinating it may be, is original research and has no place in the article. Unless you can cite a reference from which you draw your assertion, it's original research. - LeeNapier (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the "Rusky" thing you keep hitting on... John Napier of Rusky came from the area of Loch Rusky, which, rendered in the original Gaelic, was "Loch an Rusgaidh" or Loch of the Peeling.  This has nothing at all to do with Russia or Poland.  Gaelic is an entirely different language than Polish or Slovonic, and although similarities may exist, one cannot infer connection.  Correlation does not equal causation. - LeeNapier (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

--I have looked up the various suggestions you have made and am satisfied that the Polish interpretaion is a coincidence, in this case. What a coincidence, including the Rusky matter! I come across coincidences regularily and the correlations found need to be pursued. The laws of convolution drag out most possible pronunciation variants including random correlations. Thank you for the debate. Regards. Antone1 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Antone1 (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)