I would say that the name "Dora" does not have an established diminutive form in English. The most likely nickname would probably be "Dorie" (which could be spelled in multiple ways). Americans are not likely to use a nickname that is longer than the original name, since we're all about Keeping It Short. The only exception to this, generally speaking, is adding "y" to a single-syllable name (Johnny, Janie). "Dorette" and "Doreen" would simply be considered independent names.
A pet name used intimately might be longer than the original name (Doriekins, Dora-Bora, Adorable), but that would typically be restricted to use for a small child or a lover.
I consider the ancient Uncle Scrooge much, much older than Donald, and so, I consider him to be Donald's Great Uncle. So, I was wrong when I wrote I consider Scrooge to be Donald's mother's "sister's" brother. I meant Donald's "maternal grandmother's or maternal grandfather's brother.
But that's not what Barks had in mind: when he made a family tree in the 1950's, he made Scrooge Donald's uncle, not greatuncle; and when he made another family tree in the 1990's (without remembering what he had written in the earlier tree) he still made Scrooge Donald's uncle, not greatuncle.
Even if we don't look at family trees and only consider Barks' published stories, there's the fact that Scrooge often says that Donald is his nephew and HDL are his grandnephews, while he never says that Donald is his grandnephew and HDL are his great-grandnephews.
A few examples: in "Christmas on Bear Mountain" Scrooge calls Donald "nephew" several times, and he also calls HDL "grandnephews":
In "The Magic Hourglass" Scrooge calls Donald "nephew", and he also calls HDL "grandnephews":
Another story where Scrooge calls HDL "grandnephews" is "The Mysterious Stone Ray":
In "So Far And No Safari", Scrooge calls Donald "nephew" and HDL "grandnephews" in the same panel:
So, we can be 100% sure that Barks's Scrooge is Donald's uncle, not greatuncle.
That said, the age difference between Scrooge and Donald seems a bit bigger than a single generation, but this can easily be explained (like Rosa did) by saying that Scrooge is older than his sister Hortense, and that Hortense was not young when he became a mother: Rosa had Scrooge born in 1867 and Donald born circa 1920, so in his continuity they have about 53 years of difference.
Americans are not likely to use a nickname that is longer than the original name, since we're all about Keeping It Short. The only exception to this, generally speaking, is adding "y" to a single-syllable name (Johnny, Janie).
I guess Scrooge being called "Scroogey" by his family in Lo$ falls into that category.
Last Edit: May 14, 2017 9:21:12 GMT by drakeborough
Are you sure of that? In German Wikipedia, the article for Doretta doesn't mention any other name, while the article for Dorothea mentions Dorette as a variant... in French.
I consider the ancient Uncle Scrooge much, much older than Donald, and so, I consider him to be Donald's Great Uncle. So, I was wrong when I wrote I consider Scrooge to be Donald's mother's "sister's" brother. I meant Donald's "maternal grandmother's or maternal grandfather's brother.
But that's not what Barks had in mind: when he made a family tree in the 1950's, he made Scrooge Donald's uncle, not greatuncle; and when he made another family tree in the 1990's (without remembering what he had written in the earlier tree) he still made Scrooge Donald's uncle, not great uncle.
Even if we don't look at family trees and only consider Barks' published stories, there's the fact that Scrooge often says that Donald is his nephew and HDL are his grandnephews, while he never says that Donald is his grandnephew and HDL are his great-grandnephews.
A few examples: in "Christmas on Bear Mountain" Scrooge calls Donald "nephew" several times, and he also calls HDL "grandnephews":
So, we can be 100% sure that Barks's Scrooge is Donald's uncle, not greatuncle.
That said, the age difference between Scrooge and Donald seems a bit bigger than a single generation, but this can easily be explained (like Rosa did) by saying that Scrooge is older than his sister Hortense, and that Hortense was not young when he became a mother: Rosa had Scrooge born in 1867 and Donald born circa 1920, so in his continuity they have about 53 years of difference.
That is the major problem. If Scrooge is ancient, and Donald is a young adult and they are 50+ years apart, it is really difficult to believe Scrooge is a sibling of Donald's mother, EVEN if she gave birth to Donald in her mid 30s. Late 30s and 40s successful births were almost impossible before the recent breakthroughs in medicine. Let's be generous, and say that Donald's mother gave birth to him at age 38. Donald was born in 1920 )he was already 30 in 1950 - which is already problematical for me). She would have then been born in 1882. That would make her 15 years younger than Scrooge (and very possible). However, in the stories that Rosa drew, it appears that Scrooge is only about 10-11 years older, to allow him to be 13 years old when leaving Scotland for USA, and having Donald's mother already being born, and an infant. So, Scrooge's sister has to be even older when having Donald, or Donald has to have been born even earlier than 1920. It is too difficult to make all of this fit together.
That is the major problem. If Scrooge is ancient, and Donald is a young adult and they are 50+ years apart, it is really difficult to believe Scrooge is a sibling of Donald's mother, EVEN if she gave birth to Donald in her mid 30s. Late 30s and 40s successful births were almost impossible before the recent breakthroughs in medicine. Let's be generous, and say that Donald's mother gave birth to him at age 38. Donald was born in 1920 )he was already 30 in 1950 - which is already problematical for me). She would have then been born in 1882. That would make her 15 years younger than Scrooge (and very possible). However, in the stories that Rosa drew, it appears that Scrooge is only about 10-11 years older, to allow him to be 13 years old when leaving Scotland for USA, and having Donald's mother already being born, and an infant. So, Scrooge's sister has to be even older when having Donald, or Donald has to have been born even earlier than 1920. It is too difficult to make all of this fit together.
Going by Rosa's timeline, Hortense and Quackmore were both probably in their early forties by the time Donald and Della were born. As we discussed on another thread (or perhaps on the DCF) there appears to have been a question of fertility problems ... Rosa shows Hortense and Quackmore discussing potential children's names even before they were married and yet they didn't actually have children till much later. In my headcanon, Donald is in his late twenties or early thirties, so the above timeline fits well.
You may have a point about fertility medicine in the early 20th century, although I don't know enough about it to say either way.
[That is the major problem. If Scrooge is ancient, and Donald is a young adult and they are 50+ years apart, it is really difficult to believe Scrooge is a sibling of Donald's mother, EVEN if she gave birth to Donald in her mid 30s. Late 30s and 40s successful births were almost impossible before the recent breakthroughs in medicine. Let's be generous, and say that Donald's mother gave birth to him at age 38.
But Hortense wasn't a human, she was an anthropomorphic duck. We have no indication that their biology works in exactly the same way as humans; in fact, I like to think they age slightly slower than mammal species, which would explain Hortense's late children, along with Scrooge and Gomgold's good health at 90-something. (Not to mention that childbirth might not be so dangerous to the mother when she just lays an — admittedly rather egg — that'll hatch later.)
That is the major problem. If Scrooge is ancient, and Donald is a young adult and they are 50+ years apart, it is really difficult to believe Scrooge is a sibling of Donald's mother, EVEN if she gave birth to Donald in her mid 30s. Late 30s and 40s successful births were almost impossible before the recent breakthroughs in medicine. Let's be generous, and say that Donald's mother gave birth to him at age 38. Donald was born in 1920 )he was already 30 in 1950 - which is already problematical for me). She would have then been born in 1882. That would make her 15 years younger than Scrooge (and very possible). However, in the stories that Rosa drew, it appears that Scrooge is only about 10-11 years older, to allow him to be 13 years old when leaving Scotland for USA, and having Donald's mother already being born, and an infant. So, Scrooge's sister has to be even older when having Donald, or Donald has to have been born even earlier than 1920. It is too difficult to make all of this fit together.
Going by Rosa's timeline, Hortense and Quackmore were both probably in their early forties by the time Donald and Della were born. As we discussed on another thread (or perhaps on the DCF) there appears to have been a question of fertility problems ... Rosa shows Hortense and Quackmore discussing potential children's names even before they were married and yet they didn't actually have children till much later. In my headcanon, Donald is in his late twenties or early thirties, so the above timeline fits well.
You may have a point about fertility medicine in the early 20th century, although I don't know enough about it to say either way.
It wasn't so much the ability of a 40 year old woman to conceive the child, but more the extreme unliklihood that the mother and/or child would survive the birthing process.
[That is the major problem. If Scrooge is ancient, and Donald is a young adult and they are 50+ years apart, it is really difficult to believe Scrooge is a sibling of Donald's mother, EVEN if she gave birth to Donald in her mid 30s. Late 30s and 40s successful births were almost impossible before the recent breakthroughs in medicine. Let's be generous, and say that Donald's mother gave birth to him at age 38.
But Hortense wasn't a human, she was an anthropomorphic duck. We have no indication that their biology works in exactly the same way as humans; in fact, I like to think they age slightly slower than mammal species, which would explain Hortense's late children, along with Scrooge and Gomgold's good health at 90-something. (Not to mention that childbirth might not be so dangerous to the mother when she just lays an — admittedly rather egg — that'll hatch later.)
Well yes, of course, if we're going to consider them ducks rather than humans who look like ducks, then this whole discussion is meaningless, since the laws of human physiology wouldn't apply.
[That is the major problem. If Scrooge is ancient, and Donald is a young adult and they are 50+ years apart, it is really difficult to believe Scrooge is a sibling of Donald's mother, EVEN if she gave birth to Donald in her mid 30s. Late 30s and 40s successful births were almost impossible before the recent breakthroughs in medicine. Let's be generous, and say that Donald's mother gave birth to him at age 38.
But Hortense wasn't a human, she was an anthropomorphic duck. We have no indication that their biology works in exactly the same way as humans; in fact, I like to think they age slightly slower than mammal species, which would explain Hortense's late children, along with Scrooge and Gomgold's good health at 90-something. (Not to mention that childbirth might not be so dangerous to the mother when she just lays an — admittedly rather egg — that'll hatch later.)
I thought that YOU, like most of the other members of this forum, are of the opinion that "The Disney Ducks", and, indeed, all Disney anthropomorphic speaking and clothes-wearing characters, are basically Human-type animals, and a LOT more humanlike than like the earthly animals which they resemble in some ways. So, I thought that you, like the others, reject that The Disney Ducks are born inside hard egg shells, as a one-time anomaly of Marco Rota's, and that is NOT accepted "canon". If SO, then it would be a bit hypocritical and unfair to use that as an argument on the topic of this thread.
That is the major problem. If Scrooge is ancient, and Donald is a young adult and they are 50+ years apart, it is really difficult to believe Scrooge is a sibling of Donald's mother, EVEN if she gave birth to Donald in her mid 30s. Late 30s and 40s successful births were almost impossible before the recent breakthroughs in medicine. Let's be generous, and say that Donald's mother gave birth to him at age 38. Donald was born in 1920 )he was already 30 in 1950 - which is already problematical for me). She would have then been born in 1882. That would make her 15 years younger than Scrooge (and very possible). However, in the stories that Rosa drew, it appears that Scrooge is only about 10-11 years older, to allow him to be 13 years old when leaving Scotland for USA, and having Donald's mother already being born, and an infant. So, Scrooge's sister has to be even older when having Donald, or Donald has to have been born even earlier than 1920. It is too difficult to make all of this fit together.
In Rosa's timeline, Hortense was born in 1876 and is nine years younger than Scrooge, while Quackmore was born in 1875. If Donald and Della were born circa 1920, then Hortense was about 44 and Quackmore was about 45: that's a late age to become parents (especially for Hortense), but it's not unheard of, even a century ago. And at any rate, Barks said multiple times (both in family trees and in published stories) that Scrooge is Donald's uncle and HDL's greatuncle.
Of course Rosa could have had Hortense be more than nine years younger than Scrooge, and this would have made her younger than 44 when her twins were born, but I see why he didn't do that: the first Rosa story to feature Scrooge as a kid is "Of Ducks and Dimes and Destinies", which was created before "The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck" even though it was published after it. In "Of Ducks and Dimes and Destinies" Rosa wanted to show Scrooge's 10th birthday, and he thought that story was a perfect opportunity to show Matilda and Hortense for the first time; in order for them to appear in this story, both of them had to be less than ten years younger than Scrooge, or they wouldn't have been born yet at the time that story takes place.
Going by Rosa's timeline, Hortense and Quackmore were both probably in their early forties by the time Donald and Della were born. As we discussed on another thread (or perhaps on the DCF) there appears to have been a question of fertility problems ... Rosa shows Hortense and Quackmore discussing potential children's names even before they were married and yet they didn't actually have children till much later. In my headcanon, Donald is in his late twenties or early thirties, so the above timeline fits well.
Well, according to the original sketches for "The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck" part 11, the reason Hortense and Quackmore waited so many years before getting married is that they were waiting for Scrooge's return, until they decided to get married without him:
So, it seems Rosa was implying they were (relatively) old when they became parents not because of fertility problems, but because they were waiting to be married before having children. This scene didn't make into the finished story, and it's hard to say how much of the rejected scenes should be regared as canon, since (for example) in this version Matilda and Hortense were in Duckburg when the Bombie incident took place.
Other characters from Rosa's stories who waited long to have children are the Beagle Boys' fathers (Blackheart Beagle's sons). They were old enough to have long moustaches in 1880, and in 1902 they are still unmarried and Blackheart asks them to start raising families, because they need more Beagle Boys to fight Scrooge; when can imagine the modern Beagle Boys were born sometimes between 1910 and 1920. Of course, it's probable that the wifes of the middle generation of Beagle Boys are younger than their husbands.
But Hortense wasn't a human, she was an anthropomorphic duck. We have no indication that their biology works in exactly the same way as humans; in fact, I like to think they age slightly slower than mammal species, which would explain Hortense's late children, along with Scrooge and Gomgold's good health at 90-something. (Not to mention that childbirth might not be so dangerous to the mother when she just lays an — admittedly rather egg — that'll hatch later.)
But in duck comics in general, and Don Rosa's duck comics in particular, anthropomorphic ducks are meant to be human beings charicatuarlly drawn with animal features. If this is true, then their lifespans and age of fertility should be like that of a human being. Plus, Rosa's Hortense definitely didn't hatch eggs.
Last Edit: May 14, 2017 19:49:36 GMT by drakeborough
But Hortense wasn't a human, she was an anthropomorphic duck. We have no indication that their biology works in exactly the same way as humans; in fact, I like to think they age slightly slower than mammal species, which would explain Hortense's late children, along with Scrooge and Gomgold's good health at 90-something. (Not to mention that childbirth might not be so dangerous to the mother when she just lays an — admittedly rather egg — that'll hatch later.)
But in duck comics in general, and Don Rosa's duck comics in particular, anthropomorphic ducks are meant to be human beings charicatuarlly drawn with animal features. If this is true, then their lifespans and age of fertility should be like that of a human being. Plus, Rosa's Hortense definitely didn't hatch eggs.
That's true for fans that like realism. But The World of Ducks and Mice and Dogs is a "parallel Universe. Therefore, the laws of science don't necessarily NEED to be exactly the same. People having lifespans of 20 years longer, and vigourous youth of 20 years longer, and able to have children safely, 10 years later, is not straining the believability. It's just a matter of taste. I think of The Disney characters as human, and would like to have their World be as close to OUR World as possible, without limiting the use of some fantastic events in stories. Most others want less realism and more fantastic and impossible events.
But Hortense wasn't a human, she was an anthropomorphic duck. We have no indication that their biology works in exactly the same way as humans; in fact, I like to think they age slightly slower than mammal species, which would explain Hortense's late children, along with Scrooge and Gomgold's good health at 90-something. (Not to mention that childbirth might not be so dangerous to the mother when she just lays an — admittedly rather large — egg that'll hatch later.)
I thought that YOU, like most of the other members of this forum, are of the opinion that "The Disney Ducks", and, indeed, all Disney anthropomorphic speaking and clothes-wearing characters, are basically Human-type animals, and a LOT more humanlike than like the earthly animals which they resemble in some ways. So, I thought that you, like the others, reject that The Disney Ducks are born inside hard egg shells, as a one-time anomaly of Marco Rota's, and that is NOT accepted "canon". If SO, then it would be a bit hypocritical and unfair to use that as an argument on the topic of this thread.
I am not hypocritical, because I do believe them to be born from eggs, paradoxically for realism's sake. I like to think of the Disney Ducks's world as, indeed, a parallel universe where many species evolved to sapience, a little like in Zootopia; the anthropomorphic ducks would be to normal ducks sort of like what we are to… not monkeys, exactly… lemurs are a reasonably good fit. And it would make little sense that they'd have evolved into vivipares. At any rate, that doesn't mean I think of them as animals in quite the same way as one would of the Looney Toons.