Talk:Hidalgo (nobility)

Untitled

"the Romans, Visigoths Arabs and Cantabrians had all failed to conquer them, so they preserved their freedom, sovereignty and pre-Roman culture, beliefs and language longer than the rest of the Iberian peninsula.[14]"

The reference given by no means deals with anything related to that phrase, pretty much the opposite, it is about the hidalguia in Cantabria. The basques surrendered to the roman empire without any resistance, whereas Cantabria was the last part of the Iberian peninsula that fell to it. With reference to the Visigoths, the Basques were part of the Duchy of Cantabria, with the same status as the rest in the duchy. There wasn't any war among Basques and Cantabrians in history, yet Cantabrians made historical raids against the Roman empire, which the Basques where part of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.107.5.67 (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Those born in Biscay were hidalgos only if they could prove "clean blood", AKA, no (at least directly) muslim or jewish ancestors—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.127.191.232 (talk) 11:34, 03 October 2007 (UTC)

the 'f' in 'fijodalgo' and 'fidalgo' did not emerge through the means of corruption as stated in the article; in the VII century, 'f' stood for the modern Spanic 'h', so 'fijodalgo' was a contracted version of 'fijo de algo', not a corruption of 'hijo de algo' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.84.222.214 (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, "hidalgo" does not translate as "son of something", but as "son of the Goth". --217.127.191.232 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The earliest documentation of the term is from the 12th century, not the 7th, as noted in Joan Corominas extensive etymological dictionary (cited in the article as it now stands). The theories that it really is from "hijo de godo" or "itálico" are often bandied about, but I see no references, and the fact that it's the unsourced claim in the Spanish article does not make it so. Perhaps there were analogues to the hidalguía under the Visigoths, but again I see it in no sources. The hidalguía is a late medieval development.TriniMuñoz (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I do see a reference in the Spanish article, to: Sebastián de Covarrubias-Horozco - Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española. Ed. 1611, pp. 401 rev. - 403 voz 'FIDALGO' (perhaps added since you said this?) Haleden (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Son of something

I see that there is some difficulty in explaining why hidalgo is a "son of SOMETHING". I personally always thought that it rather was a "son of SOMEONE", from vulgar Latin "filius de aliquo" (aliquo being an abl. sg. not of aliquid = something, but of aliquis = someone (also "someone great")), an equivalent of a classical "filius alicuius". Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.13.78 (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with [u|217.127.191.232 ] Only hidalgo is a contraction of hijo de la godo or son of the Goth) to say it means son of somebody or something is pure nonsense and illogical, because every man is son of somebody. Hidalgo is a term of respect, like "your grace",and would have been shown towards a member of the gentry, the ruling class, the Goths (at the time)172.56.42.115 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"La Godo" makes absolutely no sense in Spanish. Spanish Academy traces the etymology of hidalgo as "hijo de algo". Indeed, Spanish term "algo" may mean riches, properties (please check definition #3 at https://dle.rae.es/?id=1nUry2t). The point here is not what anyone finds reasonable, but what scholarship has to say about that. And please, no need to use that language here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Iskandar Tzaraath (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Talking of something making no sense. Morphing a word "something" into meaning riches, property is a stretch. Spanish language and grammar has been affected by Muslim occupation and control. There are many words, phrases, names, grammar that are artifacts of Islamic occupation and here is another one "hijo de al godo" son of the Goth. That makes sense, but not son of something.Oldperson (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

To say that someone is a son of something is to say that he is son of an object, not a person. Various sources, including the Encylopedia Britannica say that it means son of something, then go on to torture reason by transmuting the word "something" into meaning riches or wealth. We are sons (and daughters) of someone,not something. The etymological error is a result of ascribing the algo in hidalgo to the Spanish "algo" which means something. We can be a son of a bitch, son of a witch, son of a baker, son of a banker, but not son of somethingOldperson (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed text. The source you gave for this nonsensical etymology, Oldperson, says, "The ignorant and conceited Bory St.Vincent, an authority on Spanish matters among the French, and the French only, derives the hijo d' algo, 'très naturelement,' from hijo de Gotho!". This does not support your contention, and I can find no reliable source (or any source, for that matter) that does so. The text you added is original research while the Real Academia Española is the ultimate authority on the Spanish language, therefore we'll go with the etymology given by its Diccionario de la lengua española. Carlstak (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

CarlstakIf you believe that hijo de al godo (An Arabic Spanish hybrid phrase, many of which occur in Spanish) is nonsense, the especially so is hijo de algo, son of something. That is a ridiculous interpretation, and rationalizing "something" as riches is insulting. So how about doing something about son of something".I can understand a Spanish language source not wishing to recognize that such a significant phrase has an Arabic influence, bad enough there are other words with Arabic influence like algebra, Al Hambra. There is a movement to purify the language, just as there is in France.Oldperson (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Look, Oldperson, I know you mean well, but what I believe regarding this, and what you believe, don't determine which interpretation is supported by reliable sources. You seem to be hung up on the translation, ubiquitous in the literature, of hidalgo as "son of something". I've added a reference to the Diccionario de la lengua española for this derivation. Perhaps the derivation given by The Concise Dictionary of English Etymology will clear up the confusion for you: "an ironical name, lit. 'son of something', not a nobody." I think the word "ironical" is key here; just as we might say, "He really thinks he's something", Spaniards who first used the word hidalgo (or fidalgo) hundreds of years ago were making ironical commentary about their lesser nobility.

The only way Wikipedia can function with an anyone-can-edit approach to an encyclopedia is by requiring added information to be supported by reliable sources if challenged. "...[E]ditors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified—without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions—from reliable and independent sources." You don't have a reliable source to support your contrarian stance, which seems to be a bit far-fetched. Sorry, you are the one "rationalizing" here, and calling the etymology given by authoritative sources "nonsense", "ridiculous", or "insulting" isn't going to persuade anyone. Carlstak (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

CarlstakI've seen enough of your edits to take you as a damn good editor, in fact I recall that I gave you a thanks.I understand and agree that the voice of WP depends on RS, however the argument for son of something is torturous and requires rationalization and interpretation, even by the author of a RS. The rationale for son of something is convoluted. Point made though I will leave it be. Whether son of something or son of a goth does not affect my daily life and well being.Oldperson (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

To bring in a different viewpoint, there is an chilean etymology site (https://etimologias.dechile.net/?hidalgo) that has a different take on the etymology of the word.

here is a rough google translation: The word hidalgo comes from a Low Latin formation that has nothing to do with filius or the word "son." As we know, it designates a minor rank of nobility devoid of a specific title, within the terminology of the Hispanic feudal nobility. The letter of nobility could come to an individual through blood or by belonging to a territory that had it globally recognized.

Popular etymology has had a profound effect on this word. In fact, due to the frequent apocopes of "son" in expressions of the Golden Age, such as in the insult of the time "hideputa", they contributed powerfully to strengthening the idea that the syllable hi- came from filius. In the same way, and before, regarding the form "fidalgus", popular etymology had produced a plural "fijosdalgos" which clearly implies that people understood the term as a compound, as coming from "son of something" (since it was also a negligible nobility, with pretenses of nobility and without a clear genetic link to the major noble houses).

None of that is true. Although it is a difficult word to trace, the word is formed in the low Latin of the Early Middle Ages, and the form "hidalgo" refers to an older form fidalicus (with esdrújula accentuation, which is why it produces syncopation of i, with usual guttural voicing) > fidalgo > hidalgo. Even the forma fidalicus everything is testifiable, and shows that it has nothing to do with filius, but the previous derivation of fidalicus responds to two possible origins, which could even converge and become contaminated:

1. A dialectal deformation of fidelicus, derived from the Latin word fides (loyalty, fidelity), which would be used to designate the "loyalty" to a higher noble rank, forming part of their hosts or services in case of need, in exchange for what which received a lower semi-biliary rank and tax exemptions.
2. A usual voicing of the dental of the form fitalicus, a derivative of fitum, in turn derived from fictum, with the usual assimilation and loss of the c. Fictum in Latin means "knelt, fixed." From there come expressions such as "piedra hita" (knocked stone) or simply "landmark" (in both cases, a stone marker that marked territorial limits, municipalities or estates, or distance markers). Fitalicus designates someone who is fixed or linked to a land or a major noble possession by ancestral roots, and therefore it could be assumed that he does not have blood contamination with populations acquired later, being able to retain a relationship of special rank with the major dominant groups of the feudal nobility.

It is not impossible that both terms could be confused or contaminated. On the subject, see the most recent communications on the word in the Proceedings of the XII Spanish Congress of Classical Studies (Ediciones Clásicos, 2007).

any reactions? Haleden (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Other basque people were also born "hidalgo"

As 217.127.191.232 said, natives of Biscay were "hidalgos" only if they could prove "clean blood". But not only people of Biscay, also of Gipuzcoa (and lesser extent of Álava and Navarre). Here some information:

The Hidalguía Universal (universal nobility, a proclamation that meant that anyone born in Bizcaia was of noble birth, however lowly they were), which was associated with a solar conocido (known ancestral home) formed a key part of Gipuzcoan society under the Old Regime. Fundamentally, it declared anyone from a caserío or ancestral domain to be of noble birth and therefore all their descendants were, according the phrase coined at the time, “free of any evil blood such as Jewish, Muslim or any other sect condemned by the Holy Office of the Inquisition”.

Can somebody change that info? Thanks! (contact)--Aazkasle (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fidalgo is not just Portuguese and Galician spellings, it's also and mostly Old Castilian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornelius71 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Antiquarian

Carlstak So tell me what you think of this source please. page 84 the AntiquarianThanks.Oldperson (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, I'm working on a project now, and have little spare time to spend on WP at the moment, but the Antiquarian (could you please fix the spelling above, it really bugs me to see that) issue you're citing dates to 1889; it mentions the unusual derivation of hidalgo from hijo d' âl go, which uses, oddly, the circumflex accent over the a (â), as in Portuguese, but without the initial f. This text was produced, obviously, by antiquarian societies in England, rather than philological societies, whose productions would carry more weight in language matters. It refers to this derivation as "singular", apparently in the sense of Merriam-Webster's definition "departing from general usage or expectation". Besides the weak reference to the opinion of French naturalist Bory de Saint-Vincent, there seem to be no other sources, or very few, if they exist, that mention this derivation, so in my opinion, this exceptional proposition is an anomaly in philology and doesn't merit a mention in the article. Carlstak (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

CarlstakYour argument is erudite and convincing. I accept it, but I cannot accept the "Son of something" rationalization either, it makes no sense, it is insulting to the intellect and the explanations are those of persons bending over backwards to justify their position. Unless Algo was a synonym for "a female dog" or some such By the way I do appreciate you taking the time to answer my questionOldperson (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a calque from Arabic. It means "a rich one", and it used to be explained on this page, as preserved here. (I tried to Google for more references, and I've found this (not the greatest source) and this (behind a paywall, I'm unable to access it myself).

As far as the "son of" part, Semitic languages do this kind of thing a lot. Compare son of man (’āḏām shifted from "human being" to "Adam", and ben ’āḏām, "Adamson", became the new standard expression for "human being"); son of perdition; mother of all X (not even a person); kunya; Zulfiqar.

As for "something" meaning "riches, wealth", it's actually possible to imagine this using examples from something (meaning 4.). First you say things like "40 camels, he's really got something!", then "I bet I could have such a "something" too if I were him!", then it could proceed to something like "Both of them were killed, and their somethings robbed", at whch point it would behave much like a noun.

(I can't find the original Arabic form, but all forms of Arabic have a definite article, so I guess it's possible that the same word was used without the article to mean "something" & with the article to mean "riches". That would make this kind of usage completely unremarkable, because we wouldn't even need to consider possible ambiguity.)

89.64.69.105 (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

reference needed

Someone added "reference needed" regarding the Siete Partidas. the reference given on the Spanish version of this page is: "ley segunda tit. 21. partita 2." which would translate to "law 2, title 21, division 2" I believe. Not entirely sure how the reference should be formatted. Haleden (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)