Contributor Leaderboard

Make a cup of tea! This may be long: I´ve had a look at this memorial stone now and from a linguistic point of view, based on the engraver’s use of the punctuation marks and conjunctions, I believe that the organist in question was John Robert Smail, son of Isabella and Edwin. Memorial stones of this type have inscriptions added at various times as family members die. This one is erected in 1888, in first place to the memory of Isabella Smail whose husband is already dead. It may well have been erected by her children, the above mentioned John Robert and his sister, Dorothy Ann. The inscription for Isabella Smail ends with her age and is concluded quite correctly,with a full-stop. In 1929 the stone is again engraved following the death of Dorothy Ann. This engraving, however, is commenced with a conjunction – ”also”. The conjunction in inital position indicates that this inscription has been added later than 1888, otherwise it would not be preceded by a full-stop. Dorothy Ann’s inscription, like her mother’s, ends with her age and is followed by a full-stop to mark the conclusion. The engraver has said all he/the family wishes to say. One year later in 1930, the remaining child John Robert Smail, son of Isabella, also dies and he is added to the stone. Again the engraver, probably the same one, starts his inscription with a conjunction ”and”, again, and for the same reason, indicating that it has been added after the 1929 inscription. Then follows a phrase which is not part of a sentence but does follow a full-stop: ”ORGANIST OF BEDLINGTON PARISH CHURCH FOR 55 YEARS.” At first glance the phrase may seem ambiguous and the question has arisen as to whom it refers: John Robert Smail or his wife, Jane Isabella Smail, the subject of the next following engraving. Note that he phrase, even though it is not a complete sentence, is concluded with a full-stop indicating that all has been said that should be said. However, the phrase does not commence with a conjunction, indicating that it has been added at the time of John Robert’s inscription and I suggest it is an epithet to John Robert Smail. An epithet describes an attribute which can be described as characteristic of a person – in this case, a person well known as organist of the parish church. It can also be described as being a repetition of the previously mentioned ie Fred Bloggs, vicar of this parish/ Jackie Milburn, NUFC footballer/Mary Smith, beloved aunt or, as I suggest, John Robert Smail, organist of Bedlington Parish Church for 55 years. Of course, the two elements of name and epithet do not always occur in that order. It is equally common with the epithet preceding the name: Dr Fred Bloggs/NUFC footballer, Jackie Milburn/beloved aunt, Mary Smith, organist of Bedlington Parish Church is also a possibility - hence the ambiguity. However, it is possible to disambugate it. I suggest that the next inscription is added in 1968 upon the death of John Robert’s wife, Jane Isabella. I suggest this because, again, the name of the deceased is preceded by a conjunction and follows a full-stop, indicating for the same reason as above, a new addition to the stone. After 1930. Historical linguistics isn’t the asiest of subjects but I hope this can bring some clarity to your question, Maggie. Myself, I’m 99,9% certain that it’s John Robert. The remaining 0.1% of uncertainty is the full-stop ’before’ the epithet – possibly a stonemason’s error or an incompletely engraved comma or maybe an epithet which came as an afterthought to the relatives of John Robert. There are other indicators that it is John Robert who is the organist, apart from the inscriptions, but they are found in the family history. I’ll tell you a bit of it in the next post.