Re: Names: LOSER-LOESER = ELIEZER? #germany

Roger Lustig <trovato@...>

Dear Nurit:
First, a general request to all: if a vowel has an umlaut, just replace it by
putting an E after it: Loeb LOESER. That's entirely legitimate in German; but
simply omitting the umlaut can cause problems and even embarrassment.

Loeb is generally related to Jehuda/Arjeh, i.e., lion. And Loeser is one of many
versions of Eliezer, others being Leiser, Lazar, Lazarus.

Now, if his name was Loeb LOESER, that would suggest Jehuda/Leib/Arjeh ben Eliezer
When you say the first name was transferred, does that mean his father's name
was ... ben Eliezer, or that it was Eliezer ben ...?

If LOESER was used as a surname, one would have every reason to think that the
surname had been derived >from "ben Eliezer."

Roger (ben Eliezer) Lustig Princeton, NJ researching Upper Silesia, mostly

N. Gillath wrote:

My great great grandfather's name was Lob LOSER (or similar), he was
born in 1774. Around 1800 he moved to Bierstat (now part of Wiesbaden)
and changed his name to ACKERMANN, but for 2 generations the name
LOSER was kept then discarded. But the first name Eliezer was
transferred >from one generation to the other. My question is could it
be that Lob LOSER was actually Lob (with an umlaut) ELIEZER, and later
simply called himself LOSER (or maybe Loeser)? If this is a
possibility, this might give me a new way to try and find the history
of the LOSER's before they came to Bierstadt.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.