Looking for direction re. the use of the 'origin' field in the Name Editor.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Looking for direction re. the use of the

GRAMPS - User mailing list
Thanks Dave. Your 'Group As' approach has some interesting data harmonization  implications.

But when i mentioned complexity of scripting searches, I was actually thinking of my data scraping activities in search engines, databases & scanned documents outside of Gramps. 

-Brian

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:48, Dave Scheipers
Hi Brian

I too thought that the Mc and Mac variations gave a clue to either Scot or Scots-Irish.  What I found was that Mc was just an abbreviation of Mac.  Of course now, with 'official' documents, someone's surname has become one or the other.

Within Gramps, I have used the Group As function to bring all the surnames under the one Mc (Mac) listing. I thought to have it Mac (Mc) but more names used the Mc variation, or at least more clerks were lazy and used the Mc variation.

Here is a posting detailing what I mean describing my use of the Group As function.

https://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php/Grouping_Surnames

Dave

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:31 AM Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The lack of clarity in handling this has been an aggravation for centuries.
>
> I find it annoying the my surname, in addition to the usual variant spellings that affect everyone, has the issue of multiple 'standard' cataloguing & printing handling. This makes scripting searches far more complex.
>
> I'm of a 'McCullough' line. 'Mc' is generally thought of as the Scots-Irish version of Scottish "Mac" or "son of" prefix. Alternately claimed to be indicative of bastardry heritage or merely a bastardized variant.
>
> In America, the standard set of pre-printed name index/sorting tabs/cards actually had a separate "Mc". But I actually found instances of OCD clerk wars fighting over re-filing. One faction filing according to the "it's there, why not use it" pragmatists versus Alphabetizing true-believers that "Mc" isn't part of the alphabet & must never be used.
>
> Likewise, some clerks were sure ”Mc” was an abbreviated "Mac" and filed as though it had been spelt out. Others were equally confident that Mc & Mac were not part of the actual Surname and so alphabetized according to the remainder of the surname.
>
> Meanwhile, the printed variants included using a superscript lower-case 'c', an underlined raised lower case 'c', a lower-case 'c' (even in all caps listings), a space after the 'Mc', no space between, substituting a single apostrophe or space after the 'M' for BOTH 'Mc' & 'Mac'.
>
> Thus, even with something simple, we're compelled to stir in complexity.
>
> -Brian
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:04, John W. Kitz
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> I just stumbled onto these examples: Wilhelm Graf von Limburg und Herr
> zu Broich und Liedberg and Wilhelm Graf von Neuenahr und Herr von
> Bedburg, Rösberg und Limburg.
>
> Which seem to render most of our little discussion void.
>
> The long short of it might just be that there are no clearly defined
> rules, such as in the case of elision, for the use or words such as
> "von" and "zu" in compounded German names.
>
> Maybe there are German natives on this list who'd care to comment on
> this.
>
> Regards, Jk.
>
> On 2019-10-22 12:55, John W. Kitz wrote:
> > Patrick,
> >
> > On 2019-10-22 10:36, Patrick Gerlier wrote:
> >> Le 22/10/2019 à 01:24, John W. Kitz a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Patrick, Jaran, and others,
> >>>
> >>> As for the use of "von" and "zu"; based on what little I have come
> >>> across such names to date, it is my understanding that names or
> >>> additions to names of the form "von <some location>" many times came
> >>> into being when a family member came to be the Lord of a Lordship,
> >>> while additions to names of the form "zu <some location>" may be
> >>> indicative of the expansion of such a Lordship, e.g. as the result
> >>> of what in German is referred to as "Heiratspolitik", something like
> >>> marriage politics in English.
> >>
> >> I don't think so but an advice of an expert in German conventions is
> >> needed.
> >
> > I'm sure you'll have noticed that in the above excerpt from one of my
> > earlier emails on this topic I used various words to indicate a level
> > of uncertainty, simply because I'm not sure. But that was the reason
> > for my initial post on this topic in the first place, as I stated in
> > the subject text "to seek direction regarding the use of (...)".
> >
> > Another explanation that I would deem plausible is that a compounded
> > surname of the form "family name von <some location> zu <some other
> > location>" might have come into being when the Lord of Lordship <some
> > location> lived at <some other location>.
> >
> > In the case of a compounded surname like e.g. "Raitz von Frentz zu
> > Schlenderhan" this may have meant that "<some first name> Raitz" (Lord
> > of, in German: Herr von) "Frentz" (lived at, in German: zu)
> > "Schlenderhan" (Castle).
> >
> > The above example resulting in the name in Gramps being entered
> > comprised of <some first name>, surname: Raitz, origin patrilineal,
> > additional surname: "Frentz", prefixed with "von", origin location,
> > additional surname: "Schlenderhan", prefixed with "zu", origin
> > location.
> >
> >> The reason I don't see "zu" as an extension is the fact I met names of
> >> the from "Schmidt zu Stadt" without mention of a "von Ort" (don't look
> >> for significance in my example Stadt=city, Ort=location). When both
> >> "von" and "zu" are used, they are always associated with "und"=and.
> >
> > I don't understand the logic you are applying here.
> >
> > In the example you provide could the name have come into being because
> > a person named "<some first name> Schmidt" (lived in, in German: zu)
> > "Stadt"?
> >
> > In addition why would you favor treating such a name as one single
> > surname "Schmidt zu Stadt" with the origin set to ma- or patrilineal
> > as opposed to as a compounded surname of the form "Schmidt" (with the
> > origin set to pa- or matrilineal) and "Stadt" prefixed with "zu" with
> > the origin set to location?
> >
> >> As I already mentioned in a previous post, status of the lordship is
> >> different with von/zu. In one case, it is a personal property
> >> (inherited and transmitted), in the other one it is an office bestowed
> >> upon by some superior authority (then why sometimes "Schmidt von und
> >> zu Stadt"?, claiming double authority on the county?).
> >
> > Again I'm not familiar with the example you provide, but for the sake
> > of discussion let's assume a King gave you a Castle that from that
> > point onward became your family's possession that could be passed down
> > to down to your descendants through inheritance for generations to
> > come, provided there were children to which the castle could be left
> > after the current owner passed away.
> >
> > Also for the sake of discussion let's assume that same King at some
> > later point in time gave you the rights to (enforce) some authority
> > over some geographic area outside the land and walls of the castle,
> > which typically also entailed you to be able to use some title. The
> > King may have decided to grant the rights to enforce some form of
> > authority and to use of some title with restrictions, as a result of
> > which these rights may not be transferable to your descendants or only
> > provided certain conditions are met, e.g. these rights may only be
> > transferable to male or female descendants.
> >
> > Could this be an example in which it would be appropriate for you to
> > use both "von" and "zu". I.e. prior to the first act of the King
> > coming into force you went by the name Patrick Schmidt, entered in
> > Gramps as firstname: Patrick, surname: Schmidt, origin: ma- or
> > patrilineal.
> >
> > Following the first act of the King you went by the name Patrick
> > Schmidt zu Castle, entered in Gramps as firstname: Patrick, surname:
> > Schmidt, origin: ma- or patrilineal, second surname: Castle, prefixed
> > with "zu", origin: location.
> >
> > Following the second act of the King you went by the name Patrick
> > Schmidt von/zu Castle, entered in Gramps as firstname: Patrick,
> > surname: Schmidt, origin: ma- or patrilineal, second surname: Castle,
> > prefixed with "von/zu", origin: location.
> >
> > I emphasize that I not an expert in all things concerning German
> > (feudal) names, and am merely writing the above as an IMHO plausible
> > explanation within the context of our discussion on this topic.
> >
> >> Your suggestion of Heiratspolitik is a good track. The husband then
> >> manages his wife's estate but doesn't own it, thus the "zu".
> >
> > I don't know, but doubt if that has anything to do with it. If you
> > were to read the German Wikipedia article on Heiratspolitik
> > (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiratspolitik), in English sometimes
> > referred to as Marriage of state
> > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_state) or Marriage of
> > convenience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_convenience),
> > you'll notice that particularly in ancient times marriage was a way to
> > enlarge one's possessions and/or influence or authority.
> >
> >>  Regards,
> >> Patrick
> >
> > Regards, Jk.
>
>
> --
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org

--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Looking for direction re. the use of the

Dave Scheipers
I understand that names with prefixes and leading patronymics cause
problems for us in searching and recording. When does a name like van
Dyke go from the van as a prefix to Van Dyke as a surname to Vandyke
as a single surname. Often these data entries we rely on are written
by a clerk and not the individual. We hope that the clerk was
meticulous and knew these subtleties. My own surname is seen with and
without the "I". Until my great-grandfather became a naturalized
citizen, which was the true name? Do I make pre immigrants non "I"
Schepers? Even when some clerks added the "i" ?

When I was trying to decide how to Group the names with Mc and Mac, I
debated and went back and forth which spelling to use as the primary.
Ultimately I chose the Mc as primary as more records are seen this way
and more 'official' spellings (at least in the US) are Mc. Even
understanding that historically, the names were all probably spelled
Mac

I have not started on my Scottish families but I know I'll have an
added challenge. A gg-grandmother was a McGregor (or was she a
MacGregor) which for a long time was a name that could not be used. So
how do I trace a family that had to use aliases?

But then again, if doing genealogy was easy, we would have nothing to discuss.

Dave


On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:03 AM Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thanks Dave. Your 'Group As' approach has some interesting data harmonization  implications.
>
> But when i mentioned complexity of scripting searches, I was actually thinking of my data scraping activities in search engines, databases & scanned documents outside of Gramps.
>
> -Brian
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:48, Dave Scheipers
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Brian
>
> I too thought that the Mc and Mac variations gave a clue to either Scot or Scots-Irish.  What I found was that Mc was just an abbreviation of Mac.  Of course now, with 'official' documents, someone's surname has become one or the other.
>
> Within Gramps, I have used the Group As function to bring all the surnames under the one Mc (Mac) listing. I thought to have it Mac (Mc) but more names used the Mc variation, or at least more clerks were lazy and used the Mc variation.
>
> Here is a posting detailing what I mean describing my use of the Group As function.
>
> https://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php/Grouping_Surnames
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:31 AM Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > The lack of clarity in handling this has been an aggravation for centuries.
> >
> > I find it annoying the my surname, in addition to the usual variant spellings that affect everyone, has the issue of multiple 'standard' cataloguing & printing handling. This makes scripting searches far more complex.
> >
> > I'm of a 'McCullough' line. 'Mc' is generally thought of as the Scots-Irish version of Scottish "Mac" or "son of" prefix. Alternately claimed to be indicative of bastardry heritage or merely a bastardized variant.
> >
> > In America, the standard set of pre-printed name index/sorting tabs/cards actually had a separate "Mc". But I actually found instances of OCD clerk wars fighting over re-filing. One faction filing according to the "it's there, why not use it" pragmatists versus Alphabetizing true-believers that "Mc" isn't part of the alphabet & must never be used.
> >
> > Likewise, some clerks were sure ”Mc” was an abbreviated "Mac" and filed as though it had been spelt out. Others were equally confident that Mc & Mac were not part of the actual Surname and so alphabetized according to the remainder of the surname.
> >
> > Meanwhile, the printed variants included using a superscript lower-case 'c', an underlined raised lower case 'c', a lower-case 'c' (even in all caps listings), a space after the 'Mc', no space between, substituting a single apostrophe or space after the 'M' for BOTH 'Mc' & 'Mac'.
> >
> > Thus, even with something simple, we're compelled to stir in complexity.
> >
> > -Brian
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:04, John W. Kitz
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Patrick,
> >
> > I just stumbled onto these examples: Wilhelm Graf von Limburg und Herr
> > zu Broich und Liedberg and Wilhelm Graf von Neuenahr und Herr von
> > Bedburg, Rösberg und Limburg.
> >
> > Which seem to render most of our little discussion void.
> >
> > The long short of it might just be that there are no clearly defined
> > rules, such as in the case of elision, for the use or words such as
> > "von" and "zu" in compounded German names.
> >
> > Maybe there are German natives on this list who'd care to comment on
> > this.
> >
> > Regards, Jk.
> >
> > On 2019-10-22 12:55, John W. Kitz wrote:
> > > Patrick,
> > >
> > > On 2019-10-22 10:36, Patrick Gerlier wrote:
> > >> Le 22/10/2019 à 01:24, John W. Kitz a écrit :
> > >>
> > >>> Patrick, Jaran, and others,
> > >>>
> > >>> As for the use of "von" and "zu"; based on what little I have come
> > >>> across such names to date, it is my understanding that names or
> > >>> additions to names of the form "von <some location>" many times came
> > >>> into being when a family member came to be the Lord of a Lordship,
> > >>> while additions to names of the form "zu <some location>" may be
> > >>> indicative of the expansion of such a Lordship, e.g. as the result
> > >>> of what in German is referred to as "Heiratspolitik", something like
> > >>> marriage politics in English.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think so but an advice of an expert in German conventions is
> > >> needed.
> > >
> > > I'm sure you'll have noticed that in the above excerpt from one of my
> > > earlier emails on this topic I used various words to indicate a level
> > > of uncertainty, simply because I'm not sure. But that was the reason
> > > for my initial post on this topic in the first place, as I stated in
> > > the subject text "to seek direction regarding the use of (...)".
> > >
> > > Another explanation that I would deem plausible is that a compounded
> > > surname of the form "family name von <some location> zu <some other
> > > location>" might have come into being when the Lord of Lordship <some
> > > location> lived at <some other location>.
> > >
> > > In the case of a compounded surname like e.g. "Raitz von Frentz zu
> > > Schlenderhan" this may have meant that "<some first name> Raitz" (Lord
> > > of, in German: Herr von) "Frentz" (lived at, in German: zu)
> > > "Schlenderhan" (Castle).
> > >
> > > The above example resulting in the name in Gramps being entered
> > > comprised of <some first name>, surname: Raitz, origin patrilineal,
> > > additional surname: "Frentz", prefixed with "von", origin location,
> > > additional surname: "Schlenderhan", prefixed with "zu", origin
> > > location.
> > >
> > >> The reason I don't see "zu" as an extension is the fact I met names of
> > >> the from "Schmidt zu Stadt" without mention of a "von Ort" (don't look
> > >> for significance in my example Stadt=city, Ort=location). When both
> > >> "von" and "zu" are used, they are always associated with "und"=and.
> > >
> > > I don't understand the logic you are applying here.
> > >
> > > In the example you provide could the name have come into being because
> > > a person named "<some first name> Schmidt" (lived in, in German: zu)
> > > "Stadt"?
> > >
> > > In addition why would you favor treating such a name as one single
> > > surname "Schmidt zu Stadt" with the origin set to ma- or patrilineal
> > > as opposed to as a compounded surname of the form "Schmidt" (with the
> > > origin set to pa- or matrilineal) and "Stadt" prefixed with "zu" with
> > > the origin set to location?
> > >
> > >> As I already mentioned in a previous post, status of the lordship is
> > >> different with von/zu. In one case, it is a personal property
> > >> (inherited and transmitted), in the other one it is an office bestowed
> > >> upon by some superior authority (then why sometimes "Schmidt von und
> > >> zu Stadt"?, claiming double authority on the county?).
> > >
> > > Again I'm not familiar with the example you provide, but for the sake
> > > of discussion let's assume a King gave you a Castle that from that
> > > point onward became your family's possession that could be passed down
> > > to down to your descendants through inheritance for generations to
> > > come, provided there were children to which the castle could be left
> > > after the current owner passed away.
> > >
> > > Also for the sake of discussion let's assume that same King at some
> > > later point in time gave you the rights to (enforce) some authority
> > > over some geographic area outside the land and walls of the castle,
> > > which typically also entailed you to be able to use some title. The
> > > King may have decided to grant the rights to enforce some form of
> > > authority and to use of some title with restrictions, as a result of
> > > which these rights may not be transferable to your descendants or only
> > > provided certain conditions are met, e.g. these rights may only be
> > > transferable to male or female descendants.
> > >
> > > Could this be an example in which it would be appropriate for you to
> > > use both "von" and "zu". I.e. prior to the first act of the King
> > > coming into force you went by the name Patrick Schmidt, entered in
> > > Gramps as firstname: Patrick, surname: Schmidt, origin: ma- or
> > > patrilineal.
> > >
> > > Following the first act of the King you went by the name Patrick
> > > Schmidt zu Castle, entered in Gramps as firstname: Patrick, surname:
> > > Schmidt, origin: ma- or patrilineal, second surname: Castle, prefixed
> > > with "zu", origin: location.
> > >
> > > Following the second act of the King you went by the name Patrick
> > > Schmidt von/zu Castle, entered in Gramps as firstname: Patrick,
> > > surname: Schmidt, origin: ma- or patrilineal, second surname: Castle,
> > > prefixed with "von/zu", origin: location.
> > >
> > > I emphasize that I not an expert in all things concerning German
> > > (feudal) names, and am merely writing the above as an IMHO plausible
> > > explanation within the context of our discussion on this topic.
> > >
> > >> Your suggestion of Heiratspolitik is a good track. The husband then
> > >> manages his wife's estate but doesn't own it, thus the "zu".
> > >
> > > I don't know, but doubt if that has anything to do with it. If you
> > > were to read the German Wikipedia article on Heiratspolitik
> > > (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiratspolitik), in English sometimes
> > > referred to as Marriage of state
> > > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_state) or Marriage of
> > > convenience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_convenience),
> > > you'll notice that particularly in ancient times marriage was a way to
> > > enlarge one's possessions and/or influence or authority.
> > >
> > >>  Regards,
> > >> Patrick
> > >
> > > Regards, Jk.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gramps-users mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> > https://gramps-project.org
>
> >
> > --
> > Gramps-users mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> > https://gramps-project.org
>
> --
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Looking for direction re. the use of the

GRAMPS - User mailing list



Hi All

I have been involved in the coordination of the transcription of records
for uploading to the web for over 10 years

There are 2 rules I give my trancribers
1)Transfer what you see, not what you think you see or believe
2)Under no circumstances cross reference with any other source

Therefore Mc and Mac are never grouped as a surname, they are also used
as a forename as a result of a certain Macaulay Culkin we now have
another variation ie the letter after Mc or Mac woild normally be a
capital. Although as you see I live in Scotland woe betide anyone should
get their McEwans and the Mcewans mixed up they get really annoyed

Regards
Phil
MLFHS 12583
Dumfries
On 23/10/2019 17:32, Dave Scheipers wrote:

> I understand that names with prefixes and leading patronymics cause
> problems for us in searching and recording. When does a name like van
> Dyke go from the van as a prefix to Van Dyke as a surname to Vandyke
> as a single surname. Often these data entries we rely on are written
> by a clerk and not the individual. We hope that the clerk was
> meticulous and knew these subtleties. My own surname is seen with and
> without the "I". Until my great-grandfather became a naturalized
> citizen, which was the true name? Do I make pre immigrants non "I"
> Schepers? Even when some clerks added the "i" ?
>
> When I was trying to decide how to Group the names with Mc and Mac, I
> debated and went back and forth which spelling to use as the primary.
> Ultimately I chose the Mc as primary as more records are seen this way
> and more 'official' spellings (at least in the US) are Mc. Even
> understanding that historically, the names were all probably spelled
> Mac
>
> I have not started on my Scottish families but I know I'll have an
> added challenge. A gg-grandmother was a McGregor (or was she a
> MacGregor) which for a long time was a name that could not be used. So
> how do I trace a family that had to use aliases?
>
> But then again, if doing genealogy was easy, we would have nothing to discuss.
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:03 AM Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Dave. Your 'Group As' approach has some interesting data harmonization  implications.
>>
>> But when i mentioned complexity of scripting searches, I was actually thinking of my data scraping activities in search engines, databases & scanned documents outside of Gramps.
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:48, Dave Scheipers
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Brian
>>
>> I too thought that the Mc and Mac variations gave a clue to either Scot or Scots-Irish.  What I found was that Mc was just an abbreviation of Mac.  Of course now, with 'official' documents, someone's surname has become one or the other.
>>
>> Within Gramps, I have used the Group As function to bring all the surnames under the one Mc (Mac) listing. I thought to have it Mac (Mc) but more names used the Mc variation, or at least more clerks were lazy and used the Mc variation.
>>
>> Here is a posting detailing what I mean describing my use of the Group As function.
>>
>> https://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php/Grouping_Surnames
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:31 AM Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The lack of clarity in handling this has been an aggravation for centuries.
>>>
>>> I find it annoying the my surname, in addition to the usual variant spellings that affect everyone, has the issue of multiple 'standard' cataloguing & printing handling. This makes scripting searches far more complex.
>>>
>>> I'm of a 'McCullough' line. 'Mc' is generally thought of as the Scots-Irish version of Scottish "Mac" or "son of" prefix. Alternately claimed to be indicative of bastardry heritage or merely a bastardized variant.
>>>
>>> In America, the standard set of pre-printed name index/sorting tabs/cards actually had a separate "Mc". But I actually found instances of OCD clerk wars fighting over re-filing. One faction filing according to the "it's there, why not use it" pragmatists versus Alphabetizing true-believers that "Mc" isn't part of the alphabet & must never be used.
>>>
>>> Likewise, some clerks were sure ”Mc” was an abbreviated "Mac" and filed as though it had been spelt out. Others were equally confident that Mc & Mac were not part of the actual Surname and so alphabetized according to the remainder of the surname.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the printed variants included using a superscript lower-case 'c', an underlined raised lower case 'c', a lower-case 'c' (even in all caps listings), a space after the 'Mc', no space between, substituting a single apostrophe or space after the 'M' for BOTH 'Mc' & 'Mac'.
>>>
>>> Thus, even with something simple, we're compelled to stir in complexity.
>>>
>>> -Brian
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:04, John W. Kitz
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Patrick,
>>>
>>> I just stumbled onto these examples: Wilhelm Graf von Limburg und Herr
>>> zu Broich und Liedberg and Wilhelm Graf von Neuenahr und Herr von
>>> Bedburg, Rösberg und Limburg.
>>>
>>> Which seem to render most of our little discussion void.
>>>
>>> The long short of it might just be that there are no clearly defined
>>> rules, such as in the case of elision, for the use or words such as
>>> "von" and "zu" in compounded German names.
>>>
>>> Maybe there are German natives on this list who'd care to comment on
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Regards, Jk.
>>>
>>> On 2019-10-22 12:55, John W. Kitz wrote:
>>>> Patrick,
>>>>
>>>> On 2019-10-22 10:36, Patrick Gerlier wrote:
>>>>> Le 22/10/2019 à 01:24, John W. Kitz a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrick, Jaran, and others,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the use of "von" and "zu"; based on what little I have come
>>>>>> across such names to date, it is my understanding that names or
>>>>>> additions to names of the form "von <some location>" many times came
>>>>>> into being when a family member came to be the Lord of a Lordship,
>>>>>> while additions to names of the form "zu <some location>" may be
>>>>>> indicative of the expansion of such a Lordship, e.g. as the result
>>>>>> of what in German is referred to as "Heiratspolitik", something like
>>>>>> marriage politics in English.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so but an advice of an expert in German conventions is
>>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you'll have noticed that in the above excerpt from one of my
>>>> earlier emails on this topic I used various words to indicate a level
>>>> of uncertainty, simply because I'm not sure. But that was the reason
>>>> for my initial post on this topic in the first place, as I stated in
>>>> the subject text "to seek direction regarding the use of (...)".
>>>>
>>>> Another explanation that I would deem plausible is that a compounded
>>>> surname of the form "family name von <some location> zu <some other
>>>> location>" might have come into being when the Lord of Lordship <some
>>>> location> lived at <some other location>.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of a compounded surname like e.g. "Raitz von Frentz zu
>>>> Schlenderhan" this may have meant that "<some first name> Raitz" (Lord
>>>> of, in German: Herr von) "Frentz" (lived at, in German: zu)
>>>> "Schlenderhan" (Castle).
>>>>
>>>> The above example resulting in the name in Gramps being entered
>>>> comprised of <some first name>, surname: Raitz, origin patrilineal,
>>>> additional surname: "Frentz", prefixed with "von", origin location,
>>>> additional surname: "Schlenderhan", prefixed with "zu", origin
>>>> location.
>>>>
>>>>> The reason I don't see "zu" as an extension is the fact I met names of
>>>>> the from "Schmidt zu Stadt" without mention of a "von Ort" (don't look
>>>>> for significance in my example Stadt=city, Ort=location). When both
>>>>> "von" and "zu" are used, they are always associated with "und"=and.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the logic you are applying here.
>>>>
>>>> In the example you provide could the name have come into being because
>>>> a person named "<some first name> Schmidt" (lived in, in German: zu)
>>>> "Stadt"?
>>>>
>>>> In addition why would you favor treating such a name as one single
>>>> surname "Schmidt zu Stadt" with the origin set to ma- or patrilineal
>>>> as opposed to as a compounded surname of the form "Schmidt" (with the
>>>> origin set to pa- or matrilineal) and "Stadt" prefixed with "zu" with
>>>> the origin set to location?
>>>>
>>>>> As I already mentioned in a previous post, status of the lordship is
>>>>> different with von/zu. In one case, it is a personal property
>>>>> (inherited and transmitted), in the other one it is an office bestowed
>>>>> upon by some superior authority (then why sometimes "Schmidt von und
>>>>> zu Stadt"?, claiming double authority on the county?).
>>>>
>>>> Again I'm not familiar with the example you provide, but for the sake
>>>> of discussion let's assume a King gave you a Castle that from that
>>>> point onward became your family's possession that could be passed down
>>>> to down to your descendants through inheritance for generations to
>>>> come, provided there were children to which the castle could be left
>>>> after the current owner passed away.
>>>>
>>>> Also for the sake of discussion let's assume that same King at some
>>>> later point in time gave you the rights to (enforce) some authority
>>>> over some geographic area outside the land and walls of the castle,
>>>> which typically also entailed you to be able to use some title. The
>>>> King may have decided to grant the rights to enforce some form of
>>>> authority and to use of some title with restrictions, as a result of
>>>> which these rights may not be transferable to your descendants or only
>>>> provided certain conditions are met, e.g. these rights may only be
>>>> transferable to male or female descendants.
>>>>
>>>> Could this be an example in which it would be appropriate for you to
>>>> use both "von" and "zu". I.e. prior to the first act of the King
>>>> coming into force you went by the name Patrick Schmidt, entered in
>>>> Gramps as firstname: Patrick, surname: Schmidt, origin: ma- or
>>>> patrilineal.
>>>>
>>>> Following the first act of the King you went by the name Patrick
>>>> Schmidt zu Castle, entered in Gramps as firstname: Patrick, surname:
>>>> Schmidt, origin: ma- or patrilineal, second surname: Castle, prefixed
>>>> with "zu", origin: location.
>>>>
>>>> Following the second act of the King you went by the name Patrick
>>>> Schmidt von/zu Castle, entered in Gramps as firstname: Patrick,
>>>> surname: Schmidt, origin: ma- or patrilineal, second surname: Castle,
>>>> prefixed with "von/zu", origin: location.
>>>>
>>>> I emphasize that I not an expert in all things concerning German
>>>> (feudal) names, and am merely writing the above as an IMHO plausible
>>>> explanation within the context of our discussion on this topic.
>>>>
>>>>> Your suggestion of Heiratspolitik is a good track. The husband then
>>>>> manages his wife's estate but doesn't own it, thus the "zu".
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, but doubt if that has anything to do with it. If you
>>>> were to read the German Wikipedia article on Heiratspolitik
>>>> (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiratspolitik), in English sometimes
>>>> referred to as Marriage of state
>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_state) or Marriage of
>>>> convenience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_convenience),
>>>> you'll notice that particularly in ancient times marriage was a way to
>>>> enlarge one's possessions and/or influence or authority.
>>>>
>>>>>   Regards,
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Jk.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gramps-users mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>>> https://gramps-project.org
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gramps-users mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>>> https://gramps-project.org
>>
>> --
>> Gramps-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>> https://gramps-project.org
>
>


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Looking for direction re. the use of the

enno
In reply to this post by Dave Scheipers
Op 23-10-19 om 18:32 schreef Dave Scheipers:
I understand that names with prefixes and leading patronymics cause
problems for us in searching and recording. When does a name like van
Dyke go from the van as a prefix to Van Dyke as a surname to Vandyke
as a single surname. Often these data entries we rely on are written
by a clerk and not the individual. We hope that the clerk was
meticulous and knew these subtleties.
For me the when is decided by the first sort of official record in a particular country, meaning that for my immigrant ancestor Johann Hermann Borgstette, the change to Jan Harmen Borgsteede is decided by his confirmation as a member of the Lutheran church in Amsterdam, by a minister who was also from Germany.
 My own surname is seen with and
without the "I". Until my great-grandfather became a naturalized
citizen, which was the true name? Do I make pre immigrants non "I"
Schepers? Even when some clerks added the "i" ?

It depends on the records. If he was Dutch, his birth record would most probably say Schepers or Scheepers, with the E of EE in the first syllable pronounced like the A in scape.

For my country, civil records go back to about 1812, so when you give me some more details, I can probably find him quite fast, and maybe even send a full colour scan of the record(s).

In The Netherlands, the use of an I as a sort of Umlaut is quite rare, IMO, but we have a few old Dutch place names with OI, that should be pronounced like the Dutch OO, which sounds like OE in Joe. Well known examples are Goirle, and Charlois, a part of Rotterdam.

Cheers,

Enno




--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Looking for direction re. the use of the 'origin' field in the Name Editor.

John W. Kitz-3
In reply to this post by Patrick Gerlier
Patrick, and all,

> John,
>
>
>> For completeness sake I'd like to add that in modern languages like
>> Dutch, English, Flemish, French, German, etc., as far as I know, the
>> general rule is that the apostrophe always replaces any characters
>> that are being left out or elided e.g. when:
>>
>> o two words are concatenated, such as in the case of are and not in
>> aren't or you and are in you're;
>> o as you mentioned in the case of the possessive like Patrick's or
>> Hans';
>> o in abbreviations of sorts such as in the Dutch 't kind (English: the
>> child) or in the Dutch 's morgens, 's middags, 's avonds (derived from
>> older Dutch des morgens, des middags and des avonds, in which the
>> letters "de" are elided, English: in the morning, in the afternoon, in
>> the evening);
>> o or in the French examples you gave;
>>
>> I'm not aware on any exceptions to that general rule in any of the
>> languages you mentioned, so I'd imagine it ought to be possible to
>> address most if not all such cases within the possibilities and
>> limitations of Gramps.
>>
> I realised yesterday, after your remark on my mistake about t' versus
> 't (though I have started to learn Dutch for 2-3 years and I bet that
> a friend of mine 't Kind de Roodenbeke is designated as T'Kind … in
> French official records) that my handling my request is much more
> difficult than I had thought at first.

It seems important note here that I consider lists like these and others
important to help each other, to learn from each other and discuss
matters related to the use of Gramps and in a larger context genealogy.
While doing so it is inevitable that we frequently make assertions that
upon closer examination turn out to be flawed and as long  as one is
aware of the purpose of email lists such as this one I see no problem
with that whatsoever and I wish you all the best learning Dutch.

>
> The hyphen case is quite easy and I believe ther is no fancy about it
> in European languages.
>
> Apostrophe case is not clear cut. When it represent elision to avoid a
> hiatus as in French "de Orléans" >> "d'Orléans", it can be considered
> as a suffix and my "algorithm" may apply.
>
> However in Dutch "'s morgens", "'s" has value of an isolated word and
> space before it cannot be suppressed.

In both the case of the French d'Orléans and of the Dutch 's morgens the
apostrophe replaces one or more letters that are left our or elided. The
French d'Orléans is from de Orléans in which the letter "e" is left out
from the word "de" and both words are concatenated to one, i.e.
d'Orléans.

The Dutch 's morgens is from des morgens, a form that AFAIK stems from
times that the Dutch language still used cases (I'm not sure if this is
the correct English word) like the German language still does today, in
which the letters "de" are left out from the word "des", however
contrary to in the example d'Orléans, both words remain separate when
written, i.e. 's morgens.

The above IMHO warrants the conclusion that elision always, at least
AFAIK in Dutch, Flemish, French and English, the replacement of one or
more letters of a word by an apostrophe. It may, particularly in French
and English also involve the concatenation of two words into one, such
as in the case of the French d'Orléans or the English I'll.

> When I have time, I'll experiment, considering only hyphen and
> apostrophe, within my very limited knowledge of Python.
>
> Regards and thanks for the examples,
> Patrick

Regards, Jk.


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Looking for direction re. the use of the 'origin' field in the Name Editor.

Peter Merchant
Agreed John,

There are 25 emails on this topic and I think it would be a good idea if they were summarized and added to the Wiki, obviously with Assumptions highlighted  so that they won't be taken as absolute truth.  I acknowledge that to do this would take time from actual research which of course is the main reason we are all using gramps.

Peter M.

> It seems important note here that I consider lists like these and others important to help each other, to learn from each other and discuss matters related to the use of Gramps and in a larger context genealogy. While doing so it is inevitable that we frequently make assertions that upon closer examination turn out to be flawed and as long  as one is aware of the purpose of email lists such as this one I see no problem with that whatsoever and I wish you all the best learning Dutch.
>
>
>


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
12