3rd great granduncle
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Barbara Lawrence
3rd great granduncle
Could someone please be so kind and explain what a great grand is?
Barbara Lawrence
Barbara Lawrence
-
Gordon
Re: 3rd great granduncle
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:26:30 -0700, "Barbara Lawrence"
<lawrencebarbara@BELLSOUTH.NET> wrote:
A sibling of one of your parents is your aunt or uncle.
A sibling of one of your grandparents is your great aunt or
uncle.
A sibling of one of your great grand parents is your great great
aunt or uncle.
When combined the terms great and grand are essentially
synonymous. That is your great great uncle is also your great
grand uncle, meaning the uncle of your grandparent.
Gordon
<lawrencebarbara@BELLSOUTH.NET> wrote:
Could someone please be so kind and explain what a great grand is?
Barbara Lawrence
The prefix "great" moves you back one generation.
A sibling of one of your parents is your aunt or uncle.
A sibling of one of your grandparents is your great aunt or
uncle.
A sibling of one of your great grand parents is your great great
aunt or uncle.
When combined the terms great and grand are essentially
synonymous. That is your great great uncle is also your great
grand uncle, meaning the uncle of your grandparent.
Gordon
-
James A. Doemer
Re: 3rd great granduncle
In News ns1cd2l0p8rece8rg9mmodb6git0ihut8l@4ax.com,, Gordon at
gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net, typed this:
This is where is loses me. We've always referred to them as great grand
aunts or uncles. Most people use the convention that you do though. Is
there a "proper" way of reference?
gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net, typed this:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:26:30 -0700, "Barbara Lawrence"
lawrencebarbara@BELLSOUTH.NET> wrote:
Could someone please be so kind and explain what a great grand is?
Barbara Lawrence
The prefix "great" moves you back one generation.
A sibling of one of your parents is your aunt or uncle.
A sibling of one of your grandparents is your great aunt or
uncle.
A sibling of one of your great grand parents is your great great
aunt or uncle.
This is where is loses me. We've always referred to them as great grand
aunts or uncles. Most people use the convention that you do though. Is
there a "proper" way of reference?
When combined the terms great and grand are essentially
synonymous. That is your great great uncle is also your great
grand uncle, meaning the uncle of your grandparent.
-
Alida Spry
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"James A. Doemer" <ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lBqBg.678$Qf.563@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or great grand
uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not correct
from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
news:lBqBg.678$Qf.563@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News ns1cd2l0p8rece8rg9mmodb6git0ihut8l@4ax.com,, Gordon at
gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net, typed this:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:26:30 -0700, "Barbara Lawrence"
lawrencebarbara@BELLSOUTH.NET> wrote:
Could someone please be so kind and explain what a great grand is?
Barbara Lawrence
The prefix "great" moves you back one generation.
A sibling of one of your parents is your aunt or uncle.
A sibling of one of your grandparents is your great aunt or
uncle.
A sibling of one of your great grand parents is your great great
aunt or uncle.
This is where is loses me. We've always referred to them as great grand
aunts or uncles. Most people use the convention that you do though. Is
there a "proper" way of reference?
When combined the terms great and grand are essentially
synonymous. That is your great great uncle is also your great
grand uncle, meaning the uncle of your grandparent.
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or great grand
uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not correct
from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
-
Alida Spry
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
So to answer the original question, a 3rd great grand uncle would be a great
great great grand uncle or the brother of your great great great
grandfather. Of course, we don't know if the person who wrote "3rd great
grand uncle" was following the proper sequence of titles but it would seem
so.
Hope that helps.
Alida
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
"James A. Doemer" <ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lBqBg.678$Qf.563@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News ns1cd2l0p8rece8rg9mmodb6git0ihut8l@4ax.com,, Gordon at
gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net, typed this:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:26:30 -0700, "Barbara Lawrence"
lawrencebarbara@BELLSOUTH.NET> wrote:
Could someone please be so kind and explain what a great grand is?
Barbara Lawrence
The prefix "great" moves you back one generation.
A sibling of one of your parents is your aunt or uncle.
A sibling of one of your grandparents is your great aunt or
uncle.
A sibling of one of your great grand parents is your great great
aunt or uncle.
This is where is loses me. We've always referred to them as great grand
aunts or uncles. Most people use the convention that you do though. Is
there a "proper" way of reference?
When combined the terms great and grand are essentially
synonymous. That is your great great uncle is also your great
grand uncle, meaning the uncle of your grandparent.
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or great
grand uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not
correct from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
So to answer the original question, a 3rd great grand uncle would be a great
great great grand uncle or the brother of your great great great
grandfather. Of course, we don't know if the person who wrote "3rd great
grand uncle" was following the proper sequence of titles but it would seem
so.
Hope that helps.
Alida
-
Ron Head
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
[snip]
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard anyone
reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as anything other than
a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what folks in other parts of the
county called a "grand-uncle" was that same thing, but I'm not absolutely
sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would be your
"great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a "great-grand-uncle"
elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
[snip]
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or great
grand
uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not
correct
from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard anyone
reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as anything other than
a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what folks in other parts of the
county called a "grand-uncle" was that same thing, but I'm not absolutely
sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would be your
"great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a "great-grand-uncle"
elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
-
Doug Chadduck
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Ron Head wrote:
except grandmothers and grandfathers.
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
[snip]
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or great
grand
uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not
correct
from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard anyone
reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as anything other than
a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what folks in other parts of the
county called a "grand-uncle" was that same thing, but I'm not absolutely
sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would be your
"great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a "great-grand-uncle"
elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
That's how I learned it in North Dakota. All "greats" and no "grands"
except grandmothers and grandfathers.
-
Alida Spry
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Ron Head" <ronhead@knology.net> wrote in message
news:eb7b5$44d64900$18ec42f1$15565@KNOLOGY.NET...
For what it's worth, I use Family Tree Maker to record my research. If you
use their relationship calculator, the brother of your great grandfather is
shown as your great granduncle.
I don't think it's necessarily regional. I think people all over have just
learned it the wrong way. Before I started doing genealogy, I thought that
my grandparents' siblings were my great aunts and uncles too. I've been
trying to teach my kids and (other family members) the correct titles if
they ask.
Back to researching those elusive great grand aunts and uncles!
Alida
news:eb7b5$44d64900$18ec42f1$15565@KNOLOGY.NET...
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
[snip]
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or great
grand
uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not
correct
from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard
anyone
reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as anything other
than
a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what folks in other parts of
the
county called a "grand-uncle" was that same thing, but I'm not absolutely
sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would be your
"great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a "great-grand-uncle"
elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
For what it's worth, I use Family Tree Maker to record my research. If you
use their relationship calculator, the brother of your great grandfather is
shown as your great granduncle.
I don't think it's necessarily regional. I think people all over have just
learned it the wrong way. Before I started doing genealogy, I thought that
my grandparents' siblings were my great aunts and uncles too. I've been
trying to teach my kids and (other family members) the correct titles if
they ask.
Back to researching those elusive great grand aunts and uncles!
Alida
-
Phyllis Nilsson
Re: 3rd great granduncle
I live in Ohio and that is how I learned it also.
Doug Chadduck wrote:
--
Toledo,Ohio
Doug Chadduck wrote:
That's how I learned it in North Dakota. All "greats" and no "grands"
except grandmothers and grandfathers.
--
Toledo,Ohio
-
Henry Brownlee
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5GxBg.3109$hj4.1193@trnddc03...
SNIP
Keeper says that my Great Grandfather's brother is my Great-Great
Uncle. When I put the names into the calculator the other way, it says
I am his Great-Grandnephew. I like the term Grand Uncle/Aunt, etc, but
I had never heard it used until recently when I got some reports from
across the pond. Guess I'll keep using Great-Great, etc.
--
Henry F. Brownlee
Hunting Forebears
(even Great Grand Uncles)
news:5GxBg.3109$hj4.1193@trnddc03...
SNIP
For what it's worth, I use Family Tree Maker to record my research.
If you
use their relationship calculator, the brother of your great
grandfather is
shown as your great granduncle.
I don't think it's necessarily regional. I think people all over
have just
learned it the wrong way. Before I started doing genealogy, I
thought that
my grandparents' siblings were my great aunts and uncles too. I've
been
trying to teach my kids and (other family members) the correct
titles if
they ask.
Back to researching those elusive great grand aunts and uncles!
Alida
Ah, I guess it depends upon who wrote the genie program. My Brother's
Keeper says that my Great Grandfather's brother is my Great-Great
Uncle. When I put the names into the calculator the other way, it says
I am his Great-Grandnephew. I like the term Grand Uncle/Aunt, etc, but
I had never heard it used until recently when I got some reports from
across the pond. Guess I'll keep using Great-Great, etc.
--
Henry F. Brownlee
Hunting Forebears
(even Great Grand Uncles)
-
Doug Chadduck
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Alida Spry wrote:
Why is one "right" and the other "wrong"?
Who says?
Who is the arbiter?
Personally I feel neither are right or wrong. Just because they are
different does not necessitate judgement one way or the other.
Just my 2 cents.
"Ron Head" <ronhead@knology.net> wrote in message
news:eb7b5$44d64900$18ec42f1$15565@KNOLOGY.NET...
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
[snip]
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or great
grand
uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not
correct
from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard
anyone
reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as anything other
than
a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what folks in other parts of
the
county called a "grand-uncle" was that same thing, but I'm not absolutely
sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would be your
"great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a "great-grand-uncle"
elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
For what it's worth, I use Family Tree Maker to record my research. If you
use their relationship calculator, the brother of your great grandfather is
shown as your great granduncle.
I don't think it's necessarily regional. I think people all over have just
learned it the wrong way. Before I started doing genealogy, I thought that
my grandparents' siblings were my great aunts and uncles too. I've been
trying to teach my kids and (other family members) the correct titles if
they ask.
Back to researching those elusive great grand aunts and uncles!
Alida
Not meant as a challenge, but only for the sake of discussion.
Why is one "right" and the other "wrong"?
Who says?
Who is the arbiter?
Personally I feel neither are right or wrong. Just because they are
different does not necessitate judgement one way or the other.
Just my 2 cents.
-
James A. Doemer
Re: 3rd great granduncle
In News 4fydncTdbuSw5UvZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com,, Doug Chadduck at
dchadduck@comcast.net, typed this:
It seems that most people use that convention, even many people in my area
in Michigan. Of course, many of them are Southern transplants. My family
has always used granduncles/aunts. It would just seem logical as well that
the brother of your grandfather should by your granduncle. Of course, most
people I encounter seem confused when you use terms like "Second cousin once
removed" instead of "Third Cousin", or something similar. I don't know how
many people including other family members that I've had to explain
"cousins" to.
dchadduck@comcast.net, typed this:
Ron Head wrote:
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
[snip]
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or
great grand uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not
correct from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard
anyone reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as
anything other than a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what
folks in other parts of the county called a "grand-uncle" was that
same thing, but I'm not absolutely sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would
be your "great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a
"great-grand-uncle" elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
That's how I learned it in North Dakota. All "greats" and no "grands"
except grandmothers and grandfathers.
It seems that most people use that convention, even many people in my area
in Michigan. Of course, many of them are Southern transplants. My family
has always used granduncles/aunts. It would just seem logical as well that
the brother of your grandfather should by your granduncle. Of course, most
people I encounter seem confused when you use terms like "Second cousin once
removed" instead of "Third Cousin", or something similar. I don't know how
many people including other family members that I've had to explain
"cousins" to.
-
Nigel Bufton
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"...Of course, most people I encounter seem confused when you use terms like
"Second cousin once removed" instead of "Third Cousin", or something
similar. I don't know how many people including other family members that
I've had to explain "cousins" to..."
I was totally unaware that "Third Cousin" could be used as a synonym for
"Second cousin once removed". Would this mean that in cultures where one
cannot marry a first cousin, one could marry their cousin's child as they
would be considered a second cousin?
On the subject of cousin relationships, I recall being taught (many years
ago) that the "correct" way to determine cousin relationships was to work
horizontally in the same generation and then vertically for the removal.
This means that my first cousin's child is my first cousin once removed
(downward), but I am their second cousin once removed (upward). This is
because, from their perspective, the same generation would be my child which
would be their second cousin.
However, all I see nowadays is the "symmetrical" method whereby the shortest
distance is used for both directions.
Was I mistaught in my youth, or have the norms changed?
Nigel
"James A. Doemer" <ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FjEBg.962$Qf.157@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Second cousin once removed" instead of "Third Cousin", or something
similar. I don't know how many people including other family members that
I've had to explain "cousins" to..."
I was totally unaware that "Third Cousin" could be used as a synonym for
"Second cousin once removed". Would this mean that in cultures where one
cannot marry a first cousin, one could marry their cousin's child as they
would be considered a second cousin?
On the subject of cousin relationships, I recall being taught (many years
ago) that the "correct" way to determine cousin relationships was to work
horizontally in the same generation and then vertically for the removal.
This means that my first cousin's child is my first cousin once removed
(downward), but I am their second cousin once removed (upward). This is
because, from their perspective, the same generation would be my child which
would be their second cousin.
However, all I see nowadays is the "symmetrical" method whereby the shortest
distance is used for both directions.
Was I mistaught in my youth, or have the norms changed?
Nigel
"James A. Doemer" <ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FjEBg.962$Qf.157@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 4fydncTdbuSw5UvZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com,, Doug Chadduck at
dchadduck@comcast.net, typed this:
Ron Head wrote:
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
[snip]
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or
great grand uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not
correct from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard
anyone reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as
anything other than a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what
folks in other parts of the county called a "grand-uncle" was that
same thing, but I'm not absolutely sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would
be your "great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a
"great-grand-uncle" elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
That's how I learned it in North Dakota. All "greats" and no "grands"
except grandmothers and grandfathers.
It seems that most people use that convention, even many people in my area
in Michigan. Of course, many of them are Southern transplants. My
family has always used granduncles/aunts. It would just seem logical as
well that the brother of your grandfather should by your granduncle. Of
course, most people I encounter seem confused when you use terms like
"Second cousin once removed" instead of "Third Cousin", or something
similar. I don't know how many people including other family members that
I've had to explain "cousins" to.
-
Henry Brownlee
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote in message
news:44d73c06$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
It is not a synonym. It is a different method of calculation called
the Civil system (that info thanks to Cheryl).
Your cousin's child is your cousin once removed. Likewise, you are
your cousin's child's cousin once removed as well.
Have no idea if it ever changed or not.
Henry
news:44d73c06$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I was totally unaware that "Third Cousin" could be used as a synonym
for
"Second cousin once removed". Would this mean that in cultures where
one
cannot marry a first cousin, one could marry their cousin's child as
they
would be considered a second cousin?
It is not a synonym. It is a different method of calculation called
the Civil system (that info thanks to Cheryl).
On the subject of cousin relationships, I recall being taught (many
years
ago) that the "correct" way to determine cousin relationships was to
work
horizontally in the same generation and then vertically for the
removal.
This means that my first cousin's child is my first cousin once
removed
(downward), but I am their second cousin once removed (upward).
This is
because, from their perspective, the same generation would be my
child which
would be their second cousin.
Your cousin's child is your cousin once removed. Likewise, you are
your cousin's child's cousin once removed as well.
However, all I see nowadays is the "symmetrical" method whereby the
shortest
distance is used for both directions.
Was I mistaught in my youth, or have the norms changed?
Have no idea if it ever changed or not.
Nigel
Henry
-
Nigel Bufton
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Why would anyone take the time to post a response that addresses not a
single one of the questions or issues that were raised?
"Henry Brownlee" <hfbrownl@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gnLBg.1558$Uq1.1202@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
single one of the questions or issues that were raised?
"Henry Brownlee" <hfbrownl@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gnLBg.1558$Uq1.1202@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote in message
news:44d73c06$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I was totally unaware that "Third Cousin" could be used as a synonym
for
"Second cousin once removed". Would this mean that in cultures where
one
cannot marry a first cousin, one could marry their cousin's child as
they
would be considered a second cousin?
It is not a synonym. It is a different method of calculation called
the Civil system (that info thanks to Cheryl).
On the subject of cousin relationships, I recall being taught (many
years
ago) that the "correct" way to determine cousin relationships was to
work
horizontally in the same generation and then vertically for the
removal.
This means that my first cousin's child is my first cousin once
removed
(downward), but I am their second cousin once removed (upward).
This is
because, from their perspective, the same generation would be my
child which
would be their second cousin.
Your cousin's child is your cousin once removed. Likewise, you are
your cousin's child's cousin once removed as well.
However, all I see nowadays is the "symmetrical" method whereby the
shortest
distance is used for both directions.
Was I mistaught in my youth, or have the norms changed?
Have no idea if it ever changed or not.
Nigel
Henry
-
Dave Hinz
Re: 3rd great granduncle
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:36:58 +0100, Nigel Bufton <nigel@bufton.org> wrote:
Actually he did. But when you top-post like you just did, it makes
following the flow of the conversation nearly impossible. Please
consider not doing that if communicatin is among your goals.
Why would anyone take the time to post a response that addresses not a
single one of the questions or issues that were raised?
Actually he did. But when you top-post like you just did, it makes
following the flow of the conversation nearly impossible. Please
consider not doing that if communicatin is among your goals.
-
Nigel Bufton
Re: 3rd great granduncle
I have been communicating online for over 30 years (email since 1975,
threaded group communications since 1984).
The relative recent habit of "bottom posting" is a completely retrogressive
modern trend. And I truly resent upstarts who berate people for complying
with what has been standard (and sensible) communication practice, both
paper and electronic, for well over a hundred years.
To force readers to scroll down through what they have already read
previously (often many times) before to get to the fresh input is nothing
short of inconsiderate.
I will continue to refuse to comply with what defies common sense and common
courtesy. One should always put the new communication at the front - and
"attach" previous communications behind it for the benefit of those who are
catching up or need a memory jogger. This is how it has always been with
paper, and was for many years true with computerized communications.
There is nothing impossible about it.
(And if you think "he" responded to my questions, please review my original
and check where the question marks are. Oh dear, you forgot to include my
original at the end of your strangely neither top-posted or bottom-posted
response! And I guess that you'd assert that doing that makes it easy for
others to follow the thread?)
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jphfaF92ib7U1@individual.net...
threaded group communications since 1984).
The relative recent habit of "bottom posting" is a completely retrogressive
modern trend. And I truly resent upstarts who berate people for complying
with what has been standard (and sensible) communication practice, both
paper and electronic, for well over a hundred years.
To force readers to scroll down through what they have already read
previously (often many times) before to get to the fresh input is nothing
short of inconsiderate.
I will continue to refuse to comply with what defies common sense and common
courtesy. One should always put the new communication at the front - and
"attach" previous communications behind it for the benefit of those who are
catching up or need a memory jogger. This is how it has always been with
paper, and was for many years true with computerized communications.
There is nothing impossible about it.
(And if you think "he" responded to my questions, please review my original
and check where the question marks are. Oh dear, you forgot to include my
original at the end of your strangely neither top-posted or bottom-posted
response! And I guess that you'd assert that doing that makes it easy for
others to follow the thread?)
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jphfaF92ib7U1@individual.net...
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:36:58 +0100, Nigel Bufton <nigel@bufton.org> wrote:
Why would anyone take the time to post a response that addresses not a
single one of the questions or issues that were raised?
Actually he did. But when you top-post like you just did, it makes
following the flow of the conversation nearly impossible. Please
consider not doing that if communicatin is among your goals.
-
Dave Hinz
Re: 3rd great granduncle
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 22:21:34 +0100, Nigel Bufton <nigel@bufton.org> wrote:
Let's see. I wonder who Nigel is talking to. Let me scroll all the
way down to the bottom and see. I'll be right back.
Oh look, it's me.
I suppose you could feel that way; there were people in the early 1980s
who didn't "get it" either. Long exposure to technology doesn't mean you
just haven't noticed what works and what doesn't work during that
duration; if you didn't figure it out in the first few years, the next
few decades wouldn't help, would they.
Please define "upstarts" and "berate" as you have used them here.
I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
If you're playing Jeopardy, sure, answers before questions make sense.
In conversations, not so much.
Ah, so your problem is with those who do not _snip_ unneeded content.
As you have done by leaving my entire post at the bottom.
Really? I can't think of one example, ever, of that being the case.
Maybe in your perception of it, sure. But a conversational, point by
point discussion with answers interspersed with the points they're
addressing, as I have done, has a much cleaner flow. If nothing else,
you don't have to guess which of your points I am answering with which
of my comments.
I believe you mean "nearly impossible". I'd quote it in context but you
left it way down at the bottom, you see. Here, let me go fetch it for
you: (sigh)
SeewhatImean?
A condescending tone, on top of your other problems, isn't going to help
you get answers. Just think. If your response had been something like:
"Thanks, but that's not quite what I was asking, I was trying to find
out (insert clarifying question here)". You may have even been, you
know, helped.
But like I say, it's all in what your goals are in participating. If
you want to communicate effectively, you can choose to do so. If you
want to play jeopardy and insult those who try to help you, well, I'd
submit that it's not a real effective strategy.
I have been communicating online for over 30 years (email since 1975,
threaded group communications since 1984).
Let's see. I wonder who Nigel is talking to. Let me scroll all the
way down to the bottom and see. I'll be right back.
Oh look, it's me.
The relative recent habit of "bottom posting" is a completely retrogressive
modern trend.
I suppose you could feel that way; there were people in the early 1980s
who didn't "get it" either. Long exposure to technology doesn't mean you
just haven't noticed what works and what doesn't work during that
duration; if you didn't figure it out in the first few years, the next
few decades wouldn't help, would they.
And I truly resent upstarts who berate people
Please define "upstarts" and "berate" as you have used them here.
I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
for complying
with what has been standard (and sensible) communication practice, both
paper and electronic, for well over a hundred years.
If you're playing Jeopardy, sure, answers before questions make sense.
In conversations, not so much.
To force readers to scroll down through what they have already read
previously (often many times) before to get to the fresh input is nothing
short of inconsiderate.
Ah, so your problem is with those who do not _snip_ unneeded content.
As you have done by leaving my entire post at the bottom.
I will continue to refuse to comply with what defies common sense and common
courtesy. One should always put the new communication at the front - and
"attach" previous communications behind it for the benefit of those who are
catching up or need a memory jogger. This is how it has always been with
paper,
Really? I can't think of one example, ever, of that being the case.
and was for many years true with computerized communications.
Maybe in your perception of it, sure. But a conversational, point by
point discussion with answers interspersed with the points they're
addressing, as I have done, has a much cleaner flow. If nothing else,
you don't have to guess which of your points I am answering with which
of my comments.
There is nothing impossible about it.
I believe you mean "nearly impossible". I'd quote it in context but you
left it way down at the bottom, you see. Here, let me go fetch it for
you: (sigh)
following the flow of the conversation nearly impossible.
SeewhatImean?
(And if you think "he" responded to my questions, please review my original
and check where the question marks are.
A condescending tone, on top of your other problems, isn't going to help
you get answers. Just think. If your response had been something like:
"Thanks, but that's not quite what I was asking, I was trying to find
out (insert clarifying question here)". You may have even been, you
know, helped.
But like I say, it's all in what your goals are in participating. If
you want to communicate effectively, you can choose to do so. If you
want to play jeopardy and insult those who try to help you, well, I'd
submit that it's not a real effective strategy.
-
Dave Hinz
Re: 3rd great granduncle
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 22:21:34 +0100, Nigel Bufton <nigel@bufton.org> wrote:
And, in all this time, you never noticed that if you're going to post
_and_ email a response, you should either (a) not do that, or (b) note
it in the communication?
Yup, I'm going with the "one year of experience 30 times" theory on this
guy.
I have been communicating online for over 30 years (email since 1975,
threaded group communications since 1984).
And, in all this time, you never noticed that if you're going to post
_and_ email a response, you should either (a) not do that, or (b) note
it in the communication?
Yup, I'm going with the "one year of experience 30 times" theory on this
guy.
-
Henry Brownlee
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jpqfbF94if0U1@individual.net...
And I guess it's all my fault for snipping excess and answering
in-line. ;>)
But then, maybe he never heard of that in 30 years? You think?
Henry
news:4jpqfbF94if0U1@individual.net...
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 22:21:34 +0100, Nigel Bufton <nigel@bufton.org
wrote:
I have been communicating online for over 30 years (email since
1975,
threaded group communications since 1984).
And, in all this time, you never noticed that if you're going to
post
_and_ email a response, you should either (a) not do that, or (b)
note
it in the communication?
Yup, I'm going with the "one year of experience 30 times" theory on
this
guy.
And I guess it's all my fault for snipping excess and answering
in-line. ;>)
But then, maybe he never heard of that in 30 years? You think?
Henry
-
Nigel Bufton
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Pointless conversation. Not a single issue that I raised has been responded
to and the thread has been clipped to death.
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jpqfbF94if0U1@individual.net...
to and the thread has been clipped to death.
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jpqfbF94if0U1@individual.net...
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 22:21:34 +0100, Nigel Bufton <nigel@bufton.org> wrote:
I have been communicating online for over 30 years (email since 1975,
threaded group communications since 1984).
And, in all this time, you never noticed that if you're going to post
_and_ email a response, you should either (a) not do that, or (b) note
it in the communication?
Yup, I'm going with the "one year of experience 30 times" theory on this
guy.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote in
news:44d7aee8$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
Well, maybe someday you'll learn how. Top-posting simply isn't
acceptable for clear and proper communication.
Only a moron puts new material at the top in direct opposition to
every form of communication know to man and claims it's proper.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
I hate myself to sleep at night
news:44d7aee8$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
I have been communicating online for over 30 years (email
since 1975, threaded group communications since 1984).
Well, maybe someday you'll learn how. Top-posting simply isn't
acceptable for clear and proper communication.
Only a moron puts new material at the top in direct opposition to
every form of communication know to man and claims it's proper.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
I hate myself to sleep at night
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote in
news:44d7aee8$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
Oh, and "plonk".
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
I hate myself to sleep at night
news:44d7aee8$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
I will continue to refuse to comply with what defies common
sense and common courtesy.
Oh, and "plonk".
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
I hate myself to sleep at night
-
saki
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Henry Brownlee" <hfbrownl@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:xtPBg.394$ID1.48
@bignews2.bellsouth.net:
Odd. The gentleman seemed quite willing to bottom-post when he was first
posting to Usenet in 1995.
BTW, I appreciate the discussion on granduncles and great-granduncles. I
have a ton of both and had been erroneously applying the wrong term to
them.
----
saki@ucla.edu
@bignews2.bellsouth.net:
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jpqfbF94if0U1@individual.net...
Yup, I'm going with the "one year of experience 30 times" theory on
this guy.
And I guess it's all my fault for snipping excess and answering
in-line. ;>)
But then, maybe he never heard of that in 30 years? You think?
Odd. The gentleman seemed quite willing to bottom-post when he was first
posting to Usenet in 1995.
BTW, I appreciate the discussion on granduncles and great-granduncles. I
have a ton of both and had been erroneously applying the wrong term to
them.
----
saki@ucla.edu
-
Henry Brownlee
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"saki" <saki@ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9818A47BBAA46sakiuclaedu@130.133.1.4...
Although I think the term Grand Uncle/Aunt is very fitting, since it
corresponds to Grand Father/Mother, I don't think you are incorrect in
using Great Uncle/Aunt. It just seems to be a matter of opinion and
choice. On the other hand, if you are calling your Grand Uncles your
Great Aunts - - -
Henry
8~]
news:Xns9818A47BBAA46sakiuclaedu@130.133.1.4...
"Henry Brownlee" <hfbrownl@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:xtPBg.394$ID1.48
@bignews2.bellsouth.net:
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jpqfbF94if0U1@individual.net...
Yup, I'm going with the "one year of experience 30 times" theory
on
this guy.
And I guess it's all my fault for snipping excess and answering
in-line. ;>)
But then, maybe he never heard of that in 30 years? You think?
Odd. The gentleman seemed quite willing to bottom-post when he was
first
posting to Usenet in 1995.
BTW, I appreciate the discussion on granduncles and
great-granduncles. I
have a ton of both and had been erroneously applying the wrong term
to
them.
----
saki@ucla.edu
Although I think the term Grand Uncle/Aunt is very fitting, since it
corresponds to Grand Father/Mother, I don't think you are incorrect in
using Great Uncle/Aunt. It just seems to be a matter of opinion and
choice. On the other hand, if you are calling your Grand Uncles your
Great Aunts - - -
Henry
8~]
-
Alida Spry
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Doug Chadduck" <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8IednbufHKyBWUvZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
I guess to me, it would make it easier if there was one standard way so that
when you're speaking to someone and they are talking about Great Great Aunt
Stella you won't have to wonder if that really should be Great Grand Aunt
Stella or Great Great Grand Aunt Stella etc. It would help eliminate the
confusion.
As I said previously, I always heard my family refer to my grandparents'
siblings as great aunts and uncles too but after I started to study
genealogy and took some classes and read up on it, it seems to make more
sense, and is more logical, to follow the method I mentioned earlier.
I didn't come up with it, I'm just passing it along.
Just my 2 cents.
Alida
news:8IednbufHKyBWUvZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Alida Spry wrote:
"Ron Head" <ronhead@knology.net> wrote in message
news:eb7b5$44d64900$18ec42f1$15565@KNOLOGY.NET...
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
[snip]
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or great
grand
uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not
correct
from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard
anyone
reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as anything other
than
a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what folks in other parts of
the
county called a "grand-uncle" was that same thing, but I'm not
absolutely
sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would be
your
"great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a "great-grand-uncle"
elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
For what it's worth, I use Family Tree Maker to record my research. If
you use their relationship calculator, the brother of your great
grandfather is shown as your great granduncle.
I don't think it's necessarily regional. I think people all over have
just learned it the wrong way. Before I started doing genealogy, I
thought that my grandparents' siblings were my great aunts and uncles
too. I've been trying to teach my kids and (other family members) the
correct titles if they ask.
Back to researching those elusive great grand aunts and uncles!
Alida
Not meant as a challenge, but only for the sake of discussion.
Why is one "right" and the other "wrong"?
Who says?
Who is the arbiter?
Personally I feel neither are right or wrong. Just because they are
different does not necessitate judgement one way or the other.
Just my 2 cents.
I guess to me, it would make it easier if there was one standard way so that
when you're speaking to someone and they are talking about Great Great Aunt
Stella you won't have to wonder if that really should be Great Grand Aunt
Stella or Great Great Grand Aunt Stella etc. It would help eliminate the
confusion.
As I said previously, I always heard my family refer to my grandparents'
siblings as great aunts and uncles too but after I started to study
genealogy and took some classes and read up on it, it seems to make more
sense, and is more logical, to follow the method I mentioned earlier.
I didn't come up with it, I'm just passing it along.
Just my 2 cents.
Alida
-
Doug Chadduck
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Alida Spry wrote:
cheap cup of coffee any more. In the 60s when I worked in the folks
store and coffee bar, coffee was a dime and donuts were a nickel. The
rule was that you were never to see the bottom of the coffee cup before
you offered a refill. And after a blizzard, we're talking ND, if you was
helping shovel, both were on the house.
My mind wanders today. Grin.
Doug
"Doug Chadduck" <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8IednbufHKyBWUvZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Alida Spry wrote:
"Ron Head" <ronhead@knology.net> wrote in message
news:eb7b5$44d64900$18ec42f1$15565@KNOLOGY.NET...
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
[snip]
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or great
grand
uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not
correct
from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard
anyone
reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as anything other
than
a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what folks in other parts of
the
county called a "grand-uncle" was that same thing, but I'm not
absolutely
sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would be
your
"great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a "great-grand-uncle"
elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
For what it's worth, I use Family Tree Maker to record my research. If
you use their relationship calculator, the brother of your great
grandfather is shown as your great granduncle.
I don't think it's necessarily regional. I think people all over have
just learned it the wrong way. Before I started doing genealogy, I
thought that my grandparents' siblings were my great aunts and uncles
too. I've been trying to teach my kids and (other family members) the
correct titles if they ask.
Back to researching those elusive great grand aunts and uncles!
Alida
Not meant as a challenge, but only for the sake of discussion.
Why is one "right" and the other "wrong"?
Who says?
Who is the arbiter?
Personally I feel neither are right or wrong. Just because they are
different does not necessitate judgement one way or the other.
Just my 2 cents.
I guess to me, it would make it easier if there was one standard way so that
when you're speaking to someone and they are talking about Great Great Aunt
Stella you won't have to wonder if that really should be Great Grand Aunt
Stella or Great Great Grand Aunt Stella etc. It would help eliminate the
confusion.
As I said previously, I always heard my family refer to my grandparents'
siblings as great aunts and uncles too but after I started to study
genealogy and took some classes and read up on it, it seems to make more
sense, and is more logical, to follow the method I mentioned earlier.
I didn't come up with it, I'm just passing it along.
Just my 2 cents.
Alida
Yeh, but the bottom line is we're still a lot of cents short of even a
cheap cup of coffee any more. In the 60s when I worked in the folks
store and coffee bar, coffee was a dime and donuts were a nickel. The
rule was that you were never to see the bottom of the coffee cup before
you offered a refill. And after a blizzard, we're talking ND, if you was
helping shovel, both were on the house.
My mind wanders today. Grin.
Doug
-
clifto
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Nigel Bufton wrote:
You know better. Bottom posting has been the standard on Usenet since
before it was called Usenet.
--
More abuse of eminent domain!
http://www.villagelandgrab.com/
The relative recent habit of "bottom posting" is a completely retrogressive
modern trend.
You know better. Bottom posting has been the standard on Usenet since
before it was called Usenet.
--
More abuse of eminent domain!
http://www.villagelandgrab.com/
-
clifto
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Christopher Jahn wrote:
..sdrawkcab kniht elpoep emoS
--
More abuse of eminent domain!
http://www.villagelandgrab.com/
"Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote in
news:44d7aee8$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
I have been communicating online for over 30 years (email
since 1975, threaded group communications since 1984).
Well, maybe someday you'll learn how. Top-posting simply isn't
acceptable for clear and proper communication.
Only a moron puts new material at the top in direct opposition to
every form of communication know to man and claims it's proper.
..sdrawkcab kniht elpoep emoS
--
More abuse of eminent domain!
http://www.villagelandgrab.com/
-
Richard L. Hall
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Doug Chadduck" <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4fydncTdbuSw5UvZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
That's also the way we referred to our grandmother's brothers and sisters in
upstate NY (Syracuse).
But it's not unusual for people in different parts of the country to use
different words to mean the same thing. We put our groceries in a paper
bag. My friends in Buffalo, NY, 140 miles to the west, put them in a paper
sack. We drank soda, they drank pop. And we called a large stream a creek,
whereas here in Virginia, it's called a run (e.g., Bull Run).
The Merriam Webster online dictionary http://www.m-w.com defines a
grandaunt as the aunt of one's father or mother and says it's also called a
great-aunt. It defines a great-aunt as a grandaunt.
So I don't think there's a right or a wrong since both are correct. It just
depends on where you are as to which is preferred.
--
Richard
http://www.richlh.com
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we're here, we might as
well dance!
news:4fydncTdbuSw5UvZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
Ron Head wrote:
[snip]
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard
anyone
reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as anything other
than
a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what folks in other parts of
the
county called a "grand-uncle" was that same thing, but I'm not absolutely
sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would be
your
"great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a "great-grand-uncle"
elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
That's how I learned it in North Dakota. All "greats" and no "grands"
except grandmothers and grandfathers.
That's also the way we referred to our grandmother's brothers and sisters in
upstate NY (Syracuse).
But it's not unusual for people in different parts of the country to use
different words to mean the same thing. We put our groceries in a paper
bag. My friends in Buffalo, NY, 140 miles to the west, put them in a paper
sack. We drank soda, they drank pop. And we called a large stream a creek,
whereas here in Virginia, it's called a run (e.g., Bull Run).
The Merriam Webster online dictionary http://www.m-w.com defines a
grandaunt as the aunt of one's father or mother and says it's also called a
great-aunt. It defines a great-aunt as a grandaunt.
So I don't think there's a right or a wrong since both are correct. It just
depends on where you are as to which is preferred.
--
Richard
http://www.richlh.com
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we're here, we might as
well dance!
-
Phyllis Nilsson
Re: 3rd great granduncle
I've often thought of top posting like a file cabinet. The newest
correspondence goes in front (which would be on the top for posting).
Nigel Bufton wrote:
correspondence goes in front (which would be on the top for posting).
Nigel Bufton wrote:
The relative recent habit of "bottom posting" is a completely
retrogressive
modern trend. And I truly resent upstarts who berate people for
complying with what has been standard (and sensible) communication
practice, both paper and electronic, for well over a hundred years.
-
Nigel Bufton
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"James A. Doemer" <ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FjEBg.962$Qf.157@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I've returned to the root of this branch to rephrase my previous questions
as the subordinate thread unfortunately removed them and became a debate on
posting protocols.
My questions (rephrased) were:
Is "Third Cousin" an accepted genealogical synonym for "Second cousin once
removed"? If so, would this mean that in cultures where one cannot marry a
first cousin, one could marry their cousin's child as they would be
considered a second cousin?
On the subject of cousin relationships, I recall being taught (many years
ago) that the "correct" way to determine cousin relationships was to work
horizontally in the same generation and then vertically for the removal. By
way of example, Jane is my first cousin and has a son, Fred. I have a
daughter, Anne. Therefore, Anne is Fred's second cousin. Consequently, as
I am Anne's father, I am Fred's second cousin once removed (upward). As
Jane is my cousin and Fred is her son, he is my first cousin once removed
(downward).
I understand that almost all, if not all, online sources nowadays define a
symmetrical approach whereby Fred and I are each the other's first cousin
once removed, but I am wondering whether this is a evolution to make cousin
determination simpler to deal with. My question is whether anyone else is
aware of the previous existence of the asymmetrical definition.
Nigel
news:FjEBg.962$Qf.157@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In News 4fydncTdbuSw5UvZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com,, Doug Chadduck at
dchadduck@comcast.net, typed this:
Ron Head wrote:
"Alida Spry" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yNqBg.3020$hj4.1153@trnddc03...
[snip]
It is actually like this:
sibling of one of your parents = aunt or uncle
sibling of one of your grandparents = grand aunt or grand uncle
sibling of one of your great grandparents = great grand aunt or
great grand uncle
etc., etc.
Lots of people skip the grand and go right to great but that is not
correct from my understanding.
See the following: http://picomicro.tripod.com/
Alida
I think it may be a regional thing--in my 57 years, I've never heard
anyone reared in the South refer to a grandparent's brother as
anything other than a "great-uncle." I've always assumed that what
folks in other parts of the county called a "grand-uncle" was that
same thing, but I'm not absolutely sure.
Taking it one step farther, the brother of your great-parent would
be your "great-great-uncle" here in the South, but perhaps a
"great-grand-uncle" elsewhere.
--Ron (Montgomery, AL)
That's how I learned it in North Dakota. All "greats" and no "grands"
except grandmothers and grandfathers.
It seems that most people use that convention, even many people in my area
in Michigan. Of course, many of them are Southern transplants. My
family has always used granduncles/aunts. It would just seem logical as
well that the brother of your grandfather should by your granduncle. Of
course, most people I encounter seem confused when you use terms like
"Second cousin once removed" instead of "Third Cousin", or something
similar. I don't know how many people including other family members that
I've had to explain "cousins" to.
I've returned to the root of this branch to rephrase my previous questions
as the subordinate thread unfortunately removed them and became a debate on
posting protocols.
My questions (rephrased) were:
Is "Third Cousin" an accepted genealogical synonym for "Second cousin once
removed"? If so, would this mean that in cultures where one cannot marry a
first cousin, one could marry their cousin's child as they would be
considered a second cousin?
On the subject of cousin relationships, I recall being taught (many years
ago) that the "correct" way to determine cousin relationships was to work
horizontally in the same generation and then vertically for the removal. By
way of example, Jane is my first cousin and has a son, Fred. I have a
daughter, Anne. Therefore, Anne is Fred's second cousin. Consequently, as
I am Anne's father, I am Fred's second cousin once removed (upward). As
Jane is my cousin and Fred is her son, he is my first cousin once removed
(downward).
I understand that almost all, if not all, online sources nowadays define a
symmetrical approach whereby Fred and I are each the other's first cousin
once removed, but I am wondering whether this is a evolution to make cousin
determination simpler to deal with. My question is whether anyone else is
aware of the previous existence of the asymmetrical definition.
Nigel
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Phyllis Nilsson <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:NZKdnbpiCO21rUXZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@buckeye-express.com:
No, this is a conversation. Someone asks a question, and you
respond. Or you post a statement, and someone expands upon it.
When you take a test, your reply appears below the questions -
and that's not an accident. It's the way human beings
communicate.
Because we're on Usenet, and because of the way messages are
passed around, I might have only this one post available. If it
starts out with the reply, the messages is not likely to make any
sense at all until I get to the bottom. The proper approach to
your message is to assume that it's the only message the reader
can see. Do NOT assume that I've been following the thread, and
do NOT assume that I can simply "scroll back" to the last
message.
There is no good arguement for top-posting; it is contrary to
every standard of written communication.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
It isn't the fall that kills the child, it is the splattering of
the brain against the inside of the skull.
news:NZKdnbpiCO21rUXZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@buckeye-express.com:
I've often thought of top posting like a file cabinet. The
newest correspondence goes in front (which would be on the top
for posting).
No, this is a conversation. Someone asks a question, and you
respond. Or you post a statement, and someone expands upon it.
When you take a test, your reply appears below the questions -
and that's not an accident. It's the way human beings
communicate.
Because we're on Usenet, and because of the way messages are
passed around, I might have only this one post available. If it
starts out with the reply, the messages is not likely to make any
sense at all until I get to the bottom. The proper approach to
your message is to assume that it's the only message the reader
can see. Do NOT assume that I've been following the thread, and
do NOT assume that I can simply "scroll back" to the last
message.
There is no good arguement for top-posting; it is contrary to
every standard of written communication.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
It isn't the fall that kills the child, it is the splattering of
the brain against the inside of the skull.
-
saki
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Henry Brownlee" <hfbrownl@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:vsQBg.2650$dQ4.1229
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Yes, I'll try to watch out for that one!
----
saki@ucla.edu
sakionline.net/familypage
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Although I think the term Grand Uncle/Aunt is very fitting, since it
corresponds to Grand Father/Mother, I don't think you are incorrect in
using Great Uncle/Aunt. It just seems to be a matter of opinion and
choice. On the other hand, if you are calling your Grand Uncles your
Great Aunts - - -
Yes, I'll try to watch out for that one!
----
saki@ucla.edu
sakionline.net/familypage
-
James A. Doemer
Re: 3rd great granduncle
In News inglq3-dar.ln1@remote.clifto.com,, clifto at clifto@gmail.com, typed
this:
I have to agree here. I've been around since the days of the old fidonet
that ran on old DOS messageboard software like Teleguard, Renegade, Wildcat,
etc, long before usenet or the internet in general, and the standard has
always been to bottom post. Although, I have been known to top post on the
rare occasion myself.
this:
Nigel Bufton wrote:
The relative recent habit of "bottom posting" is a completely
retrogressive modern trend.
You know better. Bottom posting has been the standard on Usenet since
before it was called Usenet.
I have to agree here. I've been around since the days of the old fidonet
that ran on old DOS messageboard software like Teleguard, Renegade, Wildcat,
etc, long before usenet or the internet in general, and the standard has
always been to bottom post. Although, I have been known to top post on the
rare occasion myself.
-
Phyllis Nilsson
Re: 3rd great granduncle
However, when one has to wade through 73 lines of posts already read to get
to the answer at the bottom that says, "Yes, I agree," it no longer makes
sense, is not efficient, and wastes time. Sometimes change makes more
sense (like using a computer instead of paper and pencil to communicate).
I know you and I disagree on this issue, but it is nice to know I am not
alone.
Christopher Jahn wrote:
to the answer at the bottom that says, "Yes, I agree," it no longer makes
sense, is not efficient, and wastes time. Sometimes change makes more
sense (like using a computer instead of paper and pencil to communicate).
I know you and I disagree on this issue, but it is nice to know I am not
alone.
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Phyllis Nilsson:
I've often thought of top posting like a file cabinet. The
newest correspondence goes in front (which would be on the top
for posting).
No, this is a conversation. Someone asks a question, and you
respond.
-
Roland
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Phyllis Nilsson" <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
news:c6KdndCQj-RHj0fZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@buckeye-express.com...
What makes no sense is that you snipped his post down to 8 lines and still
insisted on top posting. Me thinks you are just an instigator.
news:c6KdndCQj-RHj0fZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@buckeye-express.com...
However, when one has to wade through 73 lines of posts already read to
get
to the answer at the bottom that says, "Yes, I agree," it no longer makes
sense, is not efficient, and wastes time. Sometimes change makes more
sense (like using a computer instead of paper and pencil to communicate).
I know you and I disagree on this issue, but it is nice to know I am not
alone.
What makes no sense is that you snipped his post down to 8 lines and still
insisted on top posting. Me thinks you are just an instigator.
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Phyllis Nilsson:
I've often thought of top posting like a file cabinet. The
newest correspondence goes in front (which would be on the top
for posting).
No, this is a conversation. Someone asks a question, and you
respond.
-
Phyllis Nilsson
Re: 3rd great granduncle
No, sir, I'm not instigating anything, but someone else expressed a position
with which I agree. I top post because it is efficient. I believe in
judicious snipping as I was told it is more efficient. That made sense to
me so I snip out what isn't relative to my reply.
Roland wrote:
with which I agree. I top post because it is efficient. I believe in
judicious snipping as I was told it is more efficient. That made sense to
me so I snip out what isn't relative to my reply.
Roland wrote:
What makes no sense is that you snipped his post down to 8 lines and still
insisted on top posting. Me thinks you are just an instigator.
Christopher Jahn wrote:
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Phyllis Nilsson <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:c6KdndCQj-RHj0fZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@buckeye-express.com:
That's why we SNIP the text that is not relevant to the post,
dear. Then we don't have to wade through ANYTHING.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Death is nature's way of saying `Howdy'.
news:c6KdndCQj-RHj0fZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@buckeye-express.com:
However, when one has to wade through 73 lines of posts
already read to get to the answer at the bottom that says,
"Yes, I agree," it no longer makes sense, is not efficient,
and wastes time.
That's why we SNIP the text that is not relevant to the post,
dear. Then we don't have to wade through ANYTHING.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Death is nature's way of saying `Howdy'.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Phyllis Nilsson <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:89idnTMAJITSpEfZnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@buckeye-express.com:
And then you post ass-backwards. Try doing that on the college
boards. Try doing it anywhere, in fact.
It's not about efficiency, it's about effective communication,
and top posting isn't effective communication, it's the
antithesis of good communications skills.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
"Outlook is a piece of software for giving remote access by
email to all the bugs in Internet Explorer !" Dave Korn,
alt.comp.virus
news:89idnTMAJITSpEfZnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@buckeye-express.com:
I top post because it is efficient. I believe in
judicious snipping as I was told it is more efficient. That
made sense to me so I snip out what isn't relative to my
reply.
And then you post ass-backwards. Try doing that on the college
boards. Try doing it anywhere, in fact.
It's not about efficiency, it's about effective communication,
and top posting isn't effective communication, it's the
antithesis of good communications skills.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
"Outlook is a piece of software for giving remote access by
email to all the bugs in Internet Explorer !" Dave Korn,
alt.comp.virus
-
Phyllis Nilsson
Re: 3rd great granduncle
I understand we disagree on this subject, but my top posting effectively
communicated my position, as your bottom posting effectively communicated
yours. We don't agree, so I'll drop the subject.
Christopher Jahn wrote:
--
Toledo,Ohio
communicated my position, as your bottom posting effectively communicated
yours. We don't agree, so I'll drop the subject.
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And then you post ass-backwards. Try doing that on the college
boards. Try doing it anywhere, in fact.
It's not about efficiency, it's about effective communication,
and top posting isn't effective communication, it's the
antithesis of good communications skills.
--
Toledo,Ohio
-
Nigel Bufton
Re: 3rd great granduncle
"Christopher Jahn" <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Bottom posting is indeed snipping irrelevant text. However, it seems that
many take this to mean what is irrelevant to the point the want to make, not
what is irrelevant to the post. This post is about "3rd great granduncle"
but the relevant text has been snipped way back.
If bottom-posters would adhere to the guidelines then all would make sense.
(There are plenty of guides available regarding bottom-posting protocol.)
Nigel
Phyllis Nilsson <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
However, when one has to wade through 73 lines of posts
already read to get to the answer at the bottom that says,
"Yes, I agree," it no longer makes sense, is not efficient,
and wastes time.
That's why we SNIP the text that is not relevant to the post,
dear. Then we don't have to wade through ANYTHING.
Bottom posting is indeed snipping irrelevant text. However, it seems that
many take this to mean what is irrelevant to the point the want to make, not
what is irrelevant to the post. This post is about "3rd great granduncle"
but the relevant text has been snipped way back.
If bottom-posters would adhere to the guidelines then all would make sense.
(There are plenty of guides available regarding bottom-posting protocol.)
Nigel
-
clifto
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Phyllis Nilsson wrote:
That's why people are also expected to trim their quotes, something which
top-posters RARELY do. It's not unusual to find a one-line prequel posted
above literally a thousand lines of quotes, all backward in sequence and
unreadable. There's no sense in quoting if you don't trim them and put
them in logical order, and there's no sense replying if you don't quote.
--
More abuse of eminent domain!
http://www.villagelandgrab.com/
Christopher Jahn wrote:
No, this is a conversation. Someone asks a question, and you
respond.
However, when one has to wade through 73 lines of posts already read to get
to the answer at the bottom that says, "Yes, I agree," it no longer makes
sense, is not efficient, and wastes time.
That's why people are also expected to trim their quotes, something which
top-posters RARELY do. It's not unusual to find a one-line prequel posted
above literally a thousand lines of quotes, all backward in sequence and
unreadable. There's no sense in quoting if you don't trim them and put
them in logical order, and there's no sense replying if you don't quote.
--
More abuse of eminent domain!
http://www.villagelandgrab.com/
-
Liz_in_Calgary
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Of course it doesn't really matter all that much as the last
5 "usenet conversations" all had to do with top or bottom
posting, and not the original post, and if you have been
around usenet for any legth of time you will know exactly
what they are "talking of"
take care
Liz
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:11:22 -0500, in alt.genealogy clifto
<clifto@gmail.com> wrote :
5 "usenet conversations" all had to do with top or bottom
posting, and not the original post, and if you have been
around usenet for any legth of time you will know exactly
what they are "talking of"
take care
Liz
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:11:22 -0500, in alt.genealogy clifto
<clifto@gmail.com> wrote :
That's why people are also expected to trim their quotes, something which
top-posters RARELY do. It's not unusual to find a one-line prequel posted
above literally a thousand lines of quotes, all backward in sequence and
unreadable. There's no sense in quoting if you don't trim them and put
them in logical order, and there's no sense replying if you don't quote.
-
Peremptorius
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Liz_in_Calgary <misnomer@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:q9bnd2dps27idsf7t2se0ggofsris8ml9j@4ax.com:
I just came into this conversation - this is the only message on
my server.
I have no idea what this has to do with a 3rd granduncle, and I
hat that I had to scroll down to find out what the hell you're
talking about in your post.
Jesus, people, get a clue.
news:q9bnd2dps27idsf7t2se0ggofsris8ml9j@4ax.com:
Of course it doesn't really matter all that much as the last
5 "usenet conversations" all had to do with top or bottom
posting, and not the original post, and if you have been
around usenet for any legth of time you will know exactly
what they are "talking of"
take care
Liz
I just came into this conversation - this is the only message on
my server.
I have no idea what this has to do with a 3rd granduncle, and I
hat that I had to scroll down to find out what the hell you're
talking about in your post.
Jesus, people, get a clue.
-
Liz_in_Calgary
Re: 3rd great granduncle
Hang on to your cards folks... we have a winner...
take care
LIz
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:52:10 -0500, in alt.genealogy
Peremptorius <brock@brokeback.way> wrote :
take care
LIz
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:52:10 -0500, in alt.genealogy
Peremptorius <brock@brokeback.way> wrote :
I just came into this conversation - this is the only message on
my server.
I have no idea what this has to do with a 3rd granduncle, and I
hat that I had to scroll down to find out what the hell you're
talking about in your post.
Jesus, people, get a clue.