17th century documents in New York (state, language, Latin, rights)

[linicx]

I found crourt records that document the settlement of New York from Fort Oraange and Rennserwyck to Long Island. The langauge of the documents move from English translation of Dutch records to the formal Old English.

Most of the records I have a basic understanding. But here is one word that drives me crazy. It may have do with title and it may just be a badly mispelled word. The word in question is highlighted in the following setence. Help is appreciated.. ~ Thanks.

A Warrant directed to M" Jacques Coutillean, or any others concerned in Pennoyers Land, to mak* out tlieire Rights and Title thereunto at y^ Assizes. (I saw this word spelled as tlie too)

[kevxu]

Originally Posted by linicx

I found crourt records that document the settlement of New York from Fort Oraange and Rennserwyck to Long Island. The langauge of the documents move from English translation of Dutch records to the formal Old English.

Most of the records I have a basic understanding. But here is one word that drives me crazy. It may have do with title and it may just be a badly mispelled word. The word in question is highlighted in the following setence. Help is appreciated.. ~ Thanks.

A Warrant directed to M" Jacques Coutillean, or any others concerned in Pennoyers Land, to mak* out tlieire Rights and Title thereunto at y^ Assizes. (I saw this word spelled as tlie too)

I looked at at least a dozen example I found via Google, and in each case it seems to be used as "their" as far as I can make out. But the spelling overall in these documents is quite bizarre.

[PA2UK]

Is this what you're looking at? Full text of "Documents relative to the colonial history of the state of New York"

If so, it looks like a simple OCR error (optical character recognition) in the transcription. If you look at the actual document (in PDF: Documents relative to the colonial history of the state of New York : Brodhead, John Romeyn, 1814-1873 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive ) it clearly says "theire" which is still a misspelling of "their" but could just be a typo. I was going to point out that spelling in the US wasn't completely standardized until 1828 when Noah Webster's dictionary was first published so it's understandable that 17th century documents have "misspellings". But the quote is from the index and apparently this was published in 1853?

Also, Old English died out in the 12th century so it has nothing to do with this.

[jtur88]

How about "theire" (their)? In longhand, the lower case H could have looked like L-I with a spurius and perhaps inadvertent dot.

[ABQConvict]

Originally Posted by linicx

The langauge of the documents move from English translation of Dutch records to the formal Old English.

Why would they translate the record from Dutch to Old English? Old English pretty much died out by the 13th century.

[linicx]

I was tired when I wrote that, but it is no particular excuse for ignorance. The English = no offense intended - did make some gross errors when translating the mother tongue of the Dutch to English. I incorrectly call the English language of the 17th century old English as opposed to how i hear the royals speak today.