Talk:Dayanghirang

As for the source of the etymology...
@Ysrael214

The new etymology is just an elaboration of the previous given etymology. If it is a principalia surname with a title of nobility, it is extremely likely that the following terms after the title is a name. Such names became cognomens of the pertinent individuals, similar to how Chinese names became cognomens of Christianised Chinese individuals in the Philippines. These cognomens are then inherited as surnames by the descendants. This would only happen during Spanish rule, as this was made possible by conversion to Christianity and it was also either Spanish or Catholic policy. This is a well-known rule.

The asking for the source of the etymology would then be applied to whether this is indeed a principalia surname (which is the previous etymology). At the very least that is very likely; there are few alternatives and they are quite unlikely. Nobody would take this cognomen, at least not naturally, unless they did carry that name before Christianisation. Initially, only a few people had cognomens or surnames that are workable for Spanish policy, and generally they are either principalia, i.e. nobility / in Spanish own terms "nobleza", other wealthy people, or freemen. Consider that without foreign rule, these people are in the same rank as the visually familiar datus, dayangs, rajas, and sultans in Mindanao who did not undergo foreign rule especially in the 1800s or so. These are also quite wealthy people, and generally also had cognomens. In Christianised areas, much of the populace did not have surnames before around 1840s leading to the Claveria surname policy; however surnames weren't much of a problem for the nobility even in the documents written relatively immediately after Christianisation in the 1600s. That additionally supports the supposition that this surname or cognomen was a principalia one. We can consider this and the fact that the surname has a title of nobility.

In naming, Malayan Southeast Asian nobility liked to keep all various combinations of title and name in line for themselves. This could be the case here, where the noblewoman would take a title of doña, obtain a Christian name, and then keep the previous title and name as previously customary. Spanish policy would interpret the past name as cognomen and apply hereditary surname rules to it. Other such surnames are Lakandula, Gatchalian, Gatmaitan, Raxabago (this one exhibits quite the parallelism with Dayanghirang), etc., as we do know.

In all, I'd just like to say that asking for the source would really be about the claim that it was a principalia surname. I just elaborated that earlier given etymology with revealing information using fairly certain rules. Here I also provided the known arguments as to whether it was a principalia surname or not. For everyone's knowledge.

Cheers.

- Myrnamyers (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Myrnamyers "extremely likely", "very likely", "quite unlikely", "could be the case", ... so you are not a hundred percent sure? You should still add "possibly" because you don't have things with absolute certainty. That way, you are still introducing your arguments for everyone's knowledge but still open to the possibility that that may not be the case. Now, that you have interesting.. claims, do you have reliable sources about the nobility cognomen? Doesn't have to be specifically about Dayanghirang, just about the cognomen thing. Sources like, a book, a reading, a news article, a documentary video, (or fine a Wikipedia link though discouraged), anything. Otherwise, while you have seemingly good arguments, they still seem to be baseless. Since you said this is a well-known rule, surely you have some sources? Can you show a few? We can add those to the Further reading section and remove the etymology request tag. Thanks. Ysrael214 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)