I’m trying to decipher the origins of the name “Lauren,” whose general etymology is relatively clear to me: it is related to “Laurence,” which comes from the Latin Laurentius, meaning someone from the Italian town Laurentum, meaning “of laureling,” or the like, assuming the hypothetical verb laurere to generate the present participle laurens. And that’s all well and good. But how does one arrive at the more simplified “Lauren,” lacking consonants thereafter. “Laurena” is the Latinized version, the Italian being “Lorena.” If we start from the Latin noun laur-, from laurus “laurel”, what would this hypothetical -enus/-ena suffix signify? What would the Latin name Laurena really mean?
Many websites seem to think that it and “Lauren” mean “[victoriously] crowned with laurels.” Is there anything in obscurer Latin etymology to justify this?
endings used to create personal and place names are pretty unpredictable. you may see stems that look participial but they derive from no verb at all, or first/second declension endings added to third declension stems - it is simply a convention. stacking of suffixes is also pretty common. a place name like Laurentum merely suggests the laurel tree by using its stem (laur-), with some vague endings attached (which were probably once used in a more regulated, sensible way). this is not at all a genitive plural “of laureling”, because you have the stem + -ent- + -um, where -um is undeniably a neuter nominative/accusative ending of the second declension, not a genitive plural, because it is not used so. in a way, this formation which only gives a vague reference to whatever the stem signifies is similar to the supposed proto-Latin language that used stems as entire words. just shut up and ask her out! so the answer to your question is that with many names there is a meaning, but it is not precise and you cannot give a distinct meaning to each part of the name as though you were parsing a noun. Laurena suggests a laurel tree, but this -ena is added simply for the sake of giving the name an ending (-ena is not actually a hypothetical ending, it exists in such words as terrenus), though I don’t see the point in analyzing it Latinly since it is not a genuine Latin name.
Very well; I can accept that it does not represent the genitive plural, though I know well its construction would naturally be second declension neuter, as it is with so many Roman towns. I wasn’t necessarily proposing that any Roman would have thought literally “of the laurellings” any more than an Englishman hears “Brighton” and thinks “bright town;” it was merely a musing.
in a way, this formation which only gives a vague reference to whatever the stem signifies is similar to the supposed proto-Latin language that used stems as entire words.
That sounds fascinating! What resources do you know on the subject?
just shut up and ask her out!
Heh, still not getting it.
so the answer to your question is that with many names there is a meaning, but it is not precise and you cannot give a distinct meaning to each part of the name as though you were parsing a noun.
Indeed.
Laurena suggests a laurel tree, but this -ena is added simply for the sake of giving the name an ending (-ena is not actually a hypothetical ending, it exists in such words as terrenus),
Ah! what a perfect example. Gratias, benissime.
though I don’t see the point in analyzing it Latinly since it is not a genuine Latin name.
