Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
To the List/Newsgroup.
Hello All.
While my genealogical data base is still small enough to correct without too much
revision, I am trying to determine a naming convention to use. The recent posts or I
should say the periodic outbursts on SGM/GenMed concerning this have led me to review my
data and I feel that establishing a naming convention is necessary. I thought I understood
the discussions, but these last few days have really confused me. In a post,
<1113516637.924698.292860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> dated 14 Apr 2005
Douglas Richardson stated:
"The reason why scholars use a standardized vernacular form for each given name is quite
simple: it avoids much confusion."
Then, in response to a question concerning the above, Mr. Richardson provided a definition
in post
<1113582755.766814.4200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on 15 Apr 2005
of "vernacular" as:
"The following definition of "vernacular" is taken from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
(http://www.m-w.com/):
1 a : using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather than a literary,
cultured, or foreign language".
My question here is, if we use the definition provided by Mr. Richardson for "vernacular",
how can it be standardized? Standardization implies a common language, not one "native to
a region or country". If I understand this correctly, the position he is trying to support
is one of not using the vernacular language of the local region or country of the time in
question, nor the language or spelling provided in the references used, but instead, one
of using either a standard spelling in his vernacular language, or a literary or cultured
and for medieval and Norman England, a foreign language. And here, by foreign, I mean
both in usage and time. (Mr. Richardson, do I have that right?)
These two posts were part of a thread concerning the spelling of a specific name in
genealogical documentation.
After wading through all that, I have come to believe that Mr. Richardson does not mean to
use vernacular in defining his position but to use a standardized spelling in 21st century
American English.
Others here have proposed that the best method is to be true to the vernacular of the time
or to be true to the sources.
What I propose here is a discussion (preferably scholarly) of the naming conventions that
can be used in genealogic documentation. I would like to understand the reasoning behind
each of these positions. Therefore I ask the following question.
In producing genealogical documentation what Naming Convention should be used?
A) Standardize to a single common spelling for each person and family in the
documentation.
B) Standardize to a single spelling used in the vernacular of the region/country and time
of the person being documented.
C) Pick the most commonly used spelling in your sources, and provide a list of AKAs for
all the others used in the sources referenced.
Please provide at least a summary of your reason for your answer.
Sorry for the rambling and thank you for your responses.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Hello All.
While my genealogical data base is still small enough to correct without too much
revision, I am trying to determine a naming convention to use. The recent posts or I
should say the periodic outbursts on SGM/GenMed concerning this have led me to review my
data and I feel that establishing a naming convention is necessary. I thought I understood
the discussions, but these last few days have really confused me. In a post,
<1113516637.924698.292860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> dated 14 Apr 2005
Douglas Richardson stated:
"The reason why scholars use a standardized vernacular form for each given name is quite
simple: it avoids much confusion."
Then, in response to a question concerning the above, Mr. Richardson provided a definition
in post
<1113582755.766814.4200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on 15 Apr 2005
of "vernacular" as:
"The following definition of "vernacular" is taken from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
(http://www.m-w.com/):
1 a : using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather than a literary,
cultured, or foreign language".
My question here is, if we use the definition provided by Mr. Richardson for "vernacular",
how can it be standardized? Standardization implies a common language, not one "native to
a region or country". If I understand this correctly, the position he is trying to support
is one of not using the vernacular language of the local region or country of the time in
question, nor the language or spelling provided in the references used, but instead, one
of using either a standard spelling in his vernacular language, or a literary or cultured
and for medieval and Norman England, a foreign language. And here, by foreign, I mean
both in usage and time. (Mr. Richardson, do I have that right?)
These two posts were part of a thread concerning the spelling of a specific name in
genealogical documentation.
After wading through all that, I have come to believe that Mr. Richardson does not mean to
use vernacular in defining his position but to use a standardized spelling in 21st century
American English.
Others here have proposed that the best method is to be true to the vernacular of the time
or to be true to the sources.
What I propose here is a discussion (preferably scholarly) of the naming conventions that
can be used in genealogic documentation. I would like to understand the reasoning behind
each of these positions. Therefore I ask the following question.
In producing genealogical documentation what Naming Convention should be used?
A) Standardize to a single common spelling for each person and family in the
documentation.
B) Standardize to a single spelling used in the vernacular of the region/country and time
of the person being documented.
C) Pick the most commonly used spelling in your sources, and provide a list of AKAs for
all the others used in the sources referenced.
Please provide at least a summary of your reason for your answer.
Sorry for the rambling and thank you for your responses.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
In article <000001c54287$3cb63740$8a0c020a@MyNotbook>,
brownrc@anet-dfw.com ("Richard C. Browning, Jr.") wrote:
<...>
<...>
Richard, thank you for this post--it gets to one of the core issues here.
I don't think it is useful to criticise databases for a lack of internal
consistence in spelling. And to seek to impose a particular scheme for
standardization, labling all other methods 'incorrect', is nonsensical.
It is pointless to insist that genealogists all use one particular
convention, let alone one particular name form even within a region- and
period-specific subject population.
Not only did the textual sources (Latin or vernacular) used such wide
orthography. In addition, throughout the medieval period, there was no
such thing as a standardized spelling of names or words in any of the
written languages, or a standardized pronunciation of equivalent names,
in any of the vernacular languages, in use. There have been some good
discussions here of the inherent problems with determining the name of a
particular medieval person as it would have been used in common speech.
Medieval people would simply not have understood the idea that their own
names must be spelled only one way. This imposed standardization is a
product of an early modern, nationlist intellectual watchdog movement in
various European countries, exemplified by the French 'Academie' which
still seeks to regulate that language by statute.
I do think some arbitrarily-imposed naming standardization is useful
(though not required) in a database, since only that way is indexing to
be of any value. If one recognizes it as arbitrary, then one is no
longer bound to think of one method as 'more correct' than another. One
method I adopted many years ago in creating a database of medieval
Catalonian wills was to have two parallel name fields: one for the name
*as it appears in the document*, and another with a standardized form
for searching and sorting. The standardization I adopted was the
current (20th-century) version of that name in modern Catalan, which was
OK since everyone in the database came from the same place). For names
which had no current usage in Catalan, I used the simplest phonetic
rendering of the normative Latin version of the name (which was usually
the modal spelling in the documents), stripped of any case endings.
This particular standardization method (choosing a stripped-down Latin
version) has the widest applicability for complete standardization
throughout medieval Western Europe, and has the philosophical advantage
that arbitrary standardization of names to Latin forms in written
records was an imposition with which medieval persons would have been
quite familiar.
Another widely used scholarly system for medieval names of Germanic
origin is to compile a 'lemmatized' root index--identifying the two
(usually) Germanic name-element roots and allowing searching on either
element, adopting standardized forms believed to represent the simplest
phonetic renderings of the earliest common form in which the name is
found. This results in some weirdness, such as 'Louis' becoming
something like "chlod:vech", etc. This was in vogue in the early years
of the prosopographical publications of the German scholarly 'Frieburg
school' (Karl Schmid, etc.), in which people held as dogma that users of
any form of a particular name-root were likely all related to one
another, though the vogue for house-of-cards early-medieval genealogical
reconstruction based on this name-element retention has thankfully
tapered off somewhat.
To get back to your practical query about what to do: many historians
adopt a convention of rendering medieval names into their most
recognizable form, or (if they're not already household names) rendering
them into the modern vernacular equivalent which seems to make the most
sense. Hence King John of England, but King Jean II ('the Good') of
France (captured at Poitiers by the Black Prince). And since King John
(of England) did not speak modern English (and certainly not
Anglo-Saxon), why not Jean, or Joan (the Occitan form of the male name),
or Jehan (etc.)? This king spoke Anglo-Norman but was raised at least
partly by an Aquitanian, and would have been familiar with various
pronunciations and certainly many spellings. But of course Anglophones
know who King John is; why futz with it?
One can take this farther: Guillaume 'Longespee', 10th-c duke of
Normandy, ancestor of William I, the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy & King
of England. But how about another nominal 'Frenchman', the 8th-century
'Saint Guilhem', count of Toulouse under Charlemagne (to use the
normative late-medieval Occitan form of William)? Should they all be
'William' for the sake of standardization? (Or "wil:halm", in its
lemmatized root form?)
There is no point in me or anyone else telling you what to do. Perhaps
when a COMPLETE ONE-WORLD GENEALOGICAL DATABASE, which is ALL TRUE, is
created, then the question will be decided for us.
An aside: what are the naming conventions under which LDS rites of
baptism & sealing have been performed for medieval Europeans?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
brownrc@anet-dfw.com ("Richard C. Browning, Jr.") wrote:
The recent posts on SGM/GenMed concerning this have led me to review my
data and I feel that establishing a naming convention is necessary.
<...>
My question here is, if we use the definition provided by Mr. Richardson for
"vernacular", how can it be standardized? Standardization implies a
common language, not one "native to a region or country".
<...>
Richard, thank you for this post--it gets to one of the core issues here.
I don't think it is useful to criticise databases for a lack of internal
consistence in spelling. And to seek to impose a particular scheme for
standardization, labling all other methods 'incorrect', is nonsensical.
It is pointless to insist that genealogists all use one particular
convention, let alone one particular name form even within a region- and
period-specific subject population.
Not only did the textual sources (Latin or vernacular) used such wide
orthography. In addition, throughout the medieval period, there was no
such thing as a standardized spelling of names or words in any of the
written languages, or a standardized pronunciation of equivalent names,
in any of the vernacular languages, in use. There have been some good
discussions here of the inherent problems with determining the name of a
particular medieval person as it would have been used in common speech.
Medieval people would simply not have understood the idea that their own
names must be spelled only one way. This imposed standardization is a
product of an early modern, nationlist intellectual watchdog movement in
various European countries, exemplified by the French 'Academie' which
still seeks to regulate that language by statute.
I do think some arbitrarily-imposed naming standardization is useful
(though not required) in a database, since only that way is indexing to
be of any value. If one recognizes it as arbitrary, then one is no
longer bound to think of one method as 'more correct' than another. One
method I adopted many years ago in creating a database of medieval
Catalonian wills was to have two parallel name fields: one for the name
*as it appears in the document*, and another with a standardized form
for searching and sorting. The standardization I adopted was the
current (20th-century) version of that name in modern Catalan, which was
OK since everyone in the database came from the same place). For names
which had no current usage in Catalan, I used the simplest phonetic
rendering of the normative Latin version of the name (which was usually
the modal spelling in the documents), stripped of any case endings.
This particular standardization method (choosing a stripped-down Latin
version) has the widest applicability for complete standardization
throughout medieval Western Europe, and has the philosophical advantage
that arbitrary standardization of names to Latin forms in written
records was an imposition with which medieval persons would have been
quite familiar.
Another widely used scholarly system for medieval names of Germanic
origin is to compile a 'lemmatized' root index--identifying the two
(usually) Germanic name-element roots and allowing searching on either
element, adopting standardized forms believed to represent the simplest
phonetic renderings of the earliest common form in which the name is
found. This results in some weirdness, such as 'Louis' becoming
something like "chlod:vech", etc. This was in vogue in the early years
of the prosopographical publications of the German scholarly 'Frieburg
school' (Karl Schmid, etc.), in which people held as dogma that users of
any form of a particular name-root were likely all related to one
another, though the vogue for house-of-cards early-medieval genealogical
reconstruction based on this name-element retention has thankfully
tapered off somewhat.
To get back to your practical query about what to do: many historians
adopt a convention of rendering medieval names into their most
recognizable form, or (if they're not already household names) rendering
them into the modern vernacular equivalent which seems to make the most
sense. Hence King John of England, but King Jean II ('the Good') of
France (captured at Poitiers by the Black Prince). And since King John
(of England) did not speak modern English (and certainly not
Anglo-Saxon), why not Jean, or Joan (the Occitan form of the male name),
or Jehan (etc.)? This king spoke Anglo-Norman but was raised at least
partly by an Aquitanian, and would have been familiar with various
pronunciations and certainly many spellings. But of course Anglophones
know who King John is; why futz with it?
One can take this farther: Guillaume 'Longespee', 10th-c duke of
Normandy, ancestor of William I, the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy & King
of England. But how about another nominal 'Frenchman', the 8th-century
'Saint Guilhem', count of Toulouse under Charlemagne (to use the
normative late-medieval Occitan form of William)? Should they all be
'William' for the sake of standardization? (Or "wil:halm", in its
lemmatized root form?)
There is no point in me or anyone else telling you what to do. Perhaps
when a COMPLETE ONE-WORLD GENEALOGICAL DATABASE, which is ALL TRUE, is
created, then the question will be decided for us.
An aside: what are the naming conventions under which LDS rites of
baptism & sealing have been performed for medieval Europeans?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
I think you should try to be true to the _original_ spelling. Italian names
in the Italian spelling - Hungarian names in the Hungarian spellings.
Preferably spellings used by the people concerned. In my data base there
are, of course, several exceptions. For one, William the Conqueror was not
known as William. However, through his position in history he has created
this name for himself. Charlemagne was really Charles the Great, and so on.
But when you talk about people who were ordinary people, we (I think) should
try to give them the name they were recorded by but then you may encounter
the problem that they went by a name which is recorded differently in the
Latin language and then you have to choose. Will you use the (pompous
official) Latin or the most likely name they used in that time in that
country? King Ludwig of Bavaria should we call him Lewis because that is the
most likely version in the American vernacular? I think not.
Sadly, after today Douglas Richardson really has lost his credibility in
regards to the naming process and I think you should start looking afresh,
ignoring his short sighted handling of the matter.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard C. Browning, Jr." <brownrc@anet-dfw.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 11:21 PM
Subject: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
in the Italian spelling - Hungarian names in the Hungarian spellings.
Preferably spellings used by the people concerned. In my data base there
are, of course, several exceptions. For one, William the Conqueror was not
known as William. However, through his position in history he has created
this name for himself. Charlemagne was really Charles the Great, and so on.
But when you talk about people who were ordinary people, we (I think) should
try to give them the name they were recorded by but then you may encounter
the problem that they went by a name which is recorded differently in the
Latin language and then you have to choose. Will you use the (pompous
official) Latin or the most likely name they used in that time in that
country? King Ludwig of Bavaria should we call him Lewis because that is the
most likely version in the American vernacular? I think not.
Sadly, after today Douglas Richardson really has lost his credibility in
regards to the naming process and I think you should start looking afresh,
ignoring his short sighted handling of the matter.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard C. Browning, Jr." <brownrc@anet-dfw.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 11:21 PM
Subject: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
To the List/Newsgroup.
Hello All.
While my genealogical data base is still small enough to correct without
too much
revision, I am trying to determine a naming convention to use. The recent
posts or I
should say the periodic outbursts on SGM/GenMed concerning this have led
me to review my
data and I feel that establishing a naming convention is necessary. I
thought I understood
the discussions, but these last few days have really confused me. In a
post,
1113516637.924698.292860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> dated 14 Apr 2005
Douglas Richardson stated:
"The reason why scholars use a standardized vernacular form for each given
name is quite
simple: it avoids much confusion."
Then, in response to a question concerning the above, Mr. Richardson
provided a definition
in post
1113582755.766814.4200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on 15 Apr 2005
of "vernacular" as:
"The following definition of "vernacular" is taken from Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary
(http://www.m-w.com/):
1 a : using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather
than a literary,
cultured, or foreign language".
My question here is, if we use the definition provided by Mr. Richardson
for "vernacular",
how can it be standardized? Standardization implies a common language,
not one "native to
a region or country". If I understand this correctly, the position he is
trying to support
is one of not using the vernacular language of the local region or country
of the time in
question, nor the language or spelling provided in the references used,
but instead, one
of using either a standard spelling in his vernacular language, or a
literary or cultured
and for medieval and Norman England, a foreign language. And here, by
foreign, I mean
both in usage and time. (Mr. Richardson, do I have that right?)
These two posts were part of a thread concerning the spelling of a
specific name in
genealogical documentation.
After wading through all that, I have come to believe that Mr. Richardson
does not mean to
use vernacular in defining his position but to use a standardized spelling
in 21st century
American English.
Others here have proposed that the best method is to be true to the
vernacular of the time
or to be true to the sources.
What I propose here is a discussion (preferably scholarly) of the naming
conventions that
can be used in genealogic documentation. I would like to understand the
reasoning behind
each of these positions. Therefore I ask the following question.
In producing genealogical documentation what Naming Convention should be
used?
A) Standardize to a single common spelling for each person and family in
the
documentation.
B) Standardize to a single spelling used in the vernacular of the
region/country and time
of the person being documented.
C) Pick the most commonly used spelling in your sources, and provide a
list of AKAs for
all the others used in the sources referenced.
Please provide at least a summary of your reason for your answer.
Sorry for the rambling and thank you for your responses.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
"Richard C. Browning, Jr." wrote:
The subject of naming conventions is more complicated than what you
have stated. Perhaps you can share with us your views on this topic.
Please give examples if possible. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
After wading through all that, I have come to believe that Mr.
Richardson does not mean to
use vernacular in defining his position but to use a standardized
spelling in 21st century
American English.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
The subject of naming conventions is more complicated than what you
have stated. Perhaps you can share with us your views on this topic.
Please give examples if possible. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Jean-François BLANC
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Hello,
The naming system is a true problem. As an Occitan, I'm quite annoyed
by the fact that most of my non noble ancestors used the Occitan
language while written forms are almost all in French or Frenchised
Occitan.
And which form to use for very ancient names?
For instance, for Seleukids, should we use Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Syriac?
For Achemenids, which of the 3 official languages of the Ancient
Persia should we use? Any clue on inputting and displaying properly
cuneiforms?
JF Blanc
The naming system is a true problem. As an Occitan, I'm quite annoyed
by the fact that most of my non noble ancestors used the Occitan
language while written forms are almost all in French or Frenchised
Occitan.
And which form to use for very ancient names?
For instance, for Seleukids, should we use Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Syriac?
For Achemenids, which of the 3 official languages of the Ancient
Persia should we use? Any clue on inputting and displaying properly
cuneiforms?
JF Blanc
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Rock-solid assurance of "correct" spellings of names is fraught with
danger. There must always be latitude for variation. At best, one can
say, "this is/is not *likely* to be a variant of the name [blank]", or
"this particular spelling *is more likely* a variant of the name [blank]
than that one." Degrees of likelihood.
To eschew categorical pronouncements of "right" and "wrong" in these
matters, it seems to me, is good advice.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
danger. There must always be latitude for variation. At best, one can
say, "this is/is not *likely* to be a variant of the name [blank]", or
"this particular spelling *is more likely* a variant of the name [blank]
than that one." Degrees of likelihood.
To eschew categorical pronouncements of "right" and "wrong" in these
matters, it seems to me, is good advice.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Mark B
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Briscow, Briscowe, Briscoo, Brisko, Briskoo, Briskowe,
Bryskoo, Bristoe, and even Byrkescaud and Byrkscawe
are among the variant spellings I’ve come across for
my surname. It seems to me that an article, book,
database, etc. that switched back and forth amongst
these would quickly become very confusing.
Around the late 17th century, the spelling had become
much more consistent, having narrowed to “Brisco” and
“Briscoe” with a few exceptions. Even then, both of
these were often used interchangeably by individuals
in the family and in records referring to the
individuals.
For a lineage I published in The Genealogist, I
decided to go consistently with “Brisco” for the
English line of the family, because when spellings
were finally standardized this is the spelling the
modern members of that family adopted. For the Irish
and American branches I went with “Briscoe,” because
this is the spelling most of the emigrant families
use. I’m not sure if this was a bit of a cheat, given
that prior to the early 16th century the spellings
“Brisco” and “Briscoe” were rarely used in
contemporary documents relating to the English members
of the family. To me, though, it made more sense to
impose my convention than to jump between all the
variants. Of course, I did preserve the original
spellings in quoted material. From other articles I’ve
read this seems to be a common practice.
Another situation concerns a line of my Murphey/Murphy
ancestors. In this case, cousins still argue over
which is the “correct” spelling. I go with “Murphey”
because that’s what my great-grandmother used. Several
of her siblings followed suit while several others
decided to go e-less. I might give it more thought if
I ever try to publish anything on this family. A
similar situation surrounds my Faust/Foust ancestors.
Mark Briscoe
--- "Richard C. Browning, Jr." <brownrc@anet-dfw.com>
wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Bryskoo, Bristoe, and even Byrkescaud and Byrkscawe
are among the variant spellings I’ve come across for
my surname. It seems to me that an article, book,
database, etc. that switched back and forth amongst
these would quickly become very confusing.
Around the late 17th century, the spelling had become
much more consistent, having narrowed to “Brisco” and
“Briscoe” with a few exceptions. Even then, both of
these were often used interchangeably by individuals
in the family and in records referring to the
individuals.
For a lineage I published in The Genealogist, I
decided to go consistently with “Brisco” for the
English line of the family, because when spellings
were finally standardized this is the spelling the
modern members of that family adopted. For the Irish
and American branches I went with “Briscoe,” because
this is the spelling most of the emigrant families
use. I’m not sure if this was a bit of a cheat, given
that prior to the early 16th century the spellings
“Brisco” and “Briscoe” were rarely used in
contemporary documents relating to the English members
of the family. To me, though, it made more sense to
impose my convention than to jump between all the
variants. Of course, I did preserve the original
spellings in quoted material. From other articles I’ve
read this seems to be a common practice.
Another situation concerns a line of my Murphey/Murphy
ancestors. In this case, cousins still argue over
which is the “correct” spelling. I go with “Murphey”
because that’s what my great-grandmother used. Several
of her siblings followed suit while several others
decided to go e-less. I might give it more thought if
I ever try to publish anything on this family. A
similar situation surrounds my Faust/Foust ancestors.
Mark Briscoe
--- "Richard C. Browning, Jr." <brownrc@anet-dfw.com>
wrote:
To the List/Newsgroup.
...
In producing genealogical documentation what Naming
Convention should be used?
A) Standardize to a single common spelling for each
person and family in the
documentation.
B) Standardize to a single spelling used in the
vernacular of the region/country and time
of the person being documented.
C) Pick the most commonly used spelling in your
sources, and provide a list of AKAs for
all the others used in the sources referenced.
Please provide at least a summary of your reason for
your answer.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
In article <1113679011.14644.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>,
geb@gordonbanks.com (Gordon Banks) wrote:
Thanks for this, Gordon. Given the traditional concern about the
repetition of sacraments in many traditional Christian churches (baptism
never to be done more than once, etc.), I find it interesting that the
duplication (or near-duplication) of entries one often sees in the IGI
is accompanied by similar redundancy in ordinances. I imagine that
there must be a formal LDS theological position on this, but that is
off-topic for this group.
But you mention a desire to 'get it right': are you referring to the
correct identification of individuals (in the case you mention, the
long-misidentified mother of William Longespee), or to a 'correct' form
of a name (as far as the LDS church is concerned)?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
geb@gordonbanks.com (Gordon Banks) wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 14:14 +0000, Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
An aside: what are the naming conventions under which LDS rites of
baptism & sealing have been performed for medieval Europeans?
If you look in the online IGI under Guillaume, it maps to William.
However, ordinances have been done for William/Guillaume under the names
Longspee and Longespee, and he has been sealed to Henry II as father and
several discretely named mothers as well as "Concubine 3", etc. (You
have to be a member of the church to bring up the ordinance data on
line).
I think the idea is to err on the side of doing the ordinances more than
once in order to get it right at least once.
Thanks for this, Gordon. Given the traditional concern about the
repetition of sacraments in many traditional Christian churches (baptism
never to be done more than once, etc.), I find it interesting that the
duplication (or near-duplication) of entries one often sees in the IGI
is accompanied by similar redundancy in ordinances. I imagine that
there must be a formal LDS theological position on this, but that is
off-topic for this group.
But you mention a desire to 'get it right': are you referring to the
correct identification of individuals (in the case you mention, the
long-misidentified mother of William Longespee), or to a 'correct' form
of a name (as far as the LDS church is concerned)?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gordon Banks
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
If you look in the online IGI under Guillaume, it maps to William.
However, ordinances have been done for William/Guillaume under the names
Longspee and Longespee, and he has been sealed to Henry II as father and
several discretely named mothers as well as "Concubine 3", etc. (You
have to be a member of the church to bring up the ordinance data on
line).
I think the idea is to err on the side of doing the ordinances more than
once in order to get it right at least once.
On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 14:14 +0000, Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
However, ordinances have been done for William/Guillaume under the names
Longspee and Longespee, and he has been sealed to Henry II as father and
several discretely named mothers as well as "Concubine 3", etc. (You
have to be a member of the church to bring up the ordinance data on
line).
I think the idea is to err on the side of doing the ordinances more than
once in order to get it right at least once.
On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 14:14 +0000, Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
An aside: what are the naming conventions under which LDS rites of
baptism & sealing have been performed for medieval Europeans?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
-
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
RE: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Leo, Nat, Jean-François, Tony, Mark,
Thanks for your responses. They have been very helpful in guiding me toward the
establishment of a naming convention in my documentation.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Thanks for your responses. They have been very helpful in guiding me toward the
establishment of a naming convention in my documentation.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
-
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
RE: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
[mailto:royalancestry@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 11:05
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
"Richard C. Browning, Jr." wrote:
After wading through all that, I have come to believe that Mr.
Richardson does not mean to
use vernacular in defining his position but to use a standardized
spelling in 21st century
American English.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
The subject of naming conventions is more complicated than what you
have stated. Perhaps you can share with us your views on this topic.
Please give examples if possible. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Mr. Richardson,
Is it always necessary to ignore the original request for information, and ask for the
questioner's views on the subject? I find this very condescending. I posted this request
in order to get aid from people who have more experience in this subject than myself. I
still consider myself a neophyte in genealogy. In my profession, I have obtained a
position of being considered a subject matter expert in certain areas. When I am
questioned about my position on a topic in this area, I do not try to find out what the
questioners position on the topic before I provide mine.
But, in the interest of scholarly congeniality, I will respond to your request. I have
not yet come to a conclusion, but I am leaning towards option C. My database has the
ability to create multiple fields with any field name desired. These can be used to add
alternate spellings and will be exported as notes. I plan on linking these individual
spellings to the specific reference/source that I use. I think that by doing this I will
provide anyone accessing my documentation with the best information available, in order to
ease their searches for more information.
Now could you please provide an explanation of your conventions and reasons you adapted
it?
Thank you,
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Dear Richard ~
Your first sentence in your post gives us pause. Referring to me, you
ask: "Is it always necessary to ignore the original request for
information, and ask for the questioner's views on the subject?" Then
you say: "I find this very condescending."
I often answer questions directly here on the newsgroup, and by private
e-mail. For you to suggest otherwise is just being silly. However, if
I believe the person is baiting me with a trick question (as you have
done), I've learned from past experience to ask the person to state
their position first. Then we get right to the heart of the issue of
what they want to ask, without any pretense. And, in their response,
they usually reveal their negative attitude towards me if they have
one, just as you have done.
I'm sorry you find this all condescending, but people play games here
on the newsgroup. They also imagine things that never occurred. Right
now, for example, we have CED jabbering on and on in another thread
saying that I have "betrayed" my "lack of understanding" of my own
posts in the past. CED feels I someone to interpret my own words,
because I'm unable to do so myself. I thought I had seen everything
here on the newsgroup. But this one takes the cake. Whew!
Now, to answer your own question, here we go. You apparently are
looking for a single convention to employ in the standardizing of names
in your database. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy. You are dealing
with complex language patterns which involve the interaction of three
different languages, English, French, and Latin, over the course of
many centuries. Due to the complexity of this interaction, it is
impossible to find one single convention to handle all situations
regarding names. Also, I might note that English itself has been
changing as it passing through time. So we have lots of variables, few
constants.
In the 20th Century modern historians have been engaged in the process
of modernizing and standardizing given names in their scholarly works.
The same is true for surnames. Right there you have two processes
going on, not one. While this a bit complex, the application of these
principles do work. On the whole, historians have successfully adopted
name forms such as William, Robert, Edward, Henry, Peter, etc., in
spite of the fact that these names over many centuries were spelled
many different ways. They have also almost entirely eliminated Latin
forms of names from their works, especially for names in usage found
after 1200. I certainly didn't invent these conventions, Richard. I
do approve of them, however, as they save much confusion.
I might add that historians are not in lock step agreement with each
other over the correct forms to use. This is still very much an
ongoing process, particularly with regard to female given names. From
time to time, good scholars can and do disagree. When that happens,
however, a historian usually doesn't tell the other historian that he
finds him "condescending" or that he has "betrayed" his "lack of
understanding." Rather, they are civil, polite, and collegial to one
another. And, that's the way the newsgroup should be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Richard C. Browning, Jr." wrote:
Your first sentence in your post gives us pause. Referring to me, you
ask: "Is it always necessary to ignore the original request for
information, and ask for the questioner's views on the subject?" Then
you say: "I find this very condescending."
I often answer questions directly here on the newsgroup, and by private
e-mail. For you to suggest otherwise is just being silly. However, if
I believe the person is baiting me with a trick question (as you have
done), I've learned from past experience to ask the person to state
their position first. Then we get right to the heart of the issue of
what they want to ask, without any pretense. And, in their response,
they usually reveal their negative attitude towards me if they have
one, just as you have done.
I'm sorry you find this all condescending, but people play games here
on the newsgroup. They also imagine things that never occurred. Right
now, for example, we have CED jabbering on and on in another thread
saying that I have "betrayed" my "lack of understanding" of my own
posts in the past. CED feels I someone to interpret my own words,
because I'm unable to do so myself. I thought I had seen everything
here on the newsgroup. But this one takes the cake. Whew!
Now, to answer your own question, here we go. You apparently are
looking for a single convention to employ in the standardizing of names
in your database. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy. You are dealing
with complex language patterns which involve the interaction of three
different languages, English, French, and Latin, over the course of
many centuries. Due to the complexity of this interaction, it is
impossible to find one single convention to handle all situations
regarding names. Also, I might note that English itself has been
changing as it passing through time. So we have lots of variables, few
constants.
In the 20th Century modern historians have been engaged in the process
of modernizing and standardizing given names in their scholarly works.
The same is true for surnames. Right there you have two processes
going on, not one. While this a bit complex, the application of these
principles do work. On the whole, historians have successfully adopted
name forms such as William, Robert, Edward, Henry, Peter, etc., in
spite of the fact that these names over many centuries were spelled
many different ways. They have also almost entirely eliminated Latin
forms of names from their works, especially for names in usage found
after 1200. I certainly didn't invent these conventions, Richard. I
do approve of them, however, as they save much confusion.
I might add that historians are not in lock step agreement with each
other over the correct forms to use. This is still very much an
ongoing process, particularly with regard to female given names. From
time to time, good scholars can and do disagree. When that happens,
however, a historian usually doesn't tell the other historian that he
finds him "condescending" or that he has "betrayed" his "lack of
understanding." Rather, they are civil, polite, and collegial to one
another. And, that's the way the newsgroup should be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Richard C. Browning, Jr." wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
[mailto:royalancestry@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 11:05
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
"Richard C. Browning, Jr." wrote:
After wading through all that, I have come to believe that Mr.
Richardson does not mean to
use vernacular in defining his position but to use a standardized
spelling in 21st century
American English.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
The subject of naming conventions is more complicated than what you
have stated. Perhaps you can share with us your views on this
topic.
Please give examples if possible. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Mr. Richardson,
Is it always necessary to ignore the original request for
information, and ask for the
questioner's views on the subject? I find this very condescending.
I posted this request
in order to get aid from people who have more experience in this
subject than myself. I
still consider myself a neophyte in genealogy. In my profession, I
have obtained a
position of being considered a subject matter expert in certain
areas. When I am
questioned about my position on a topic in this area, I do not try to
find out what the
questioners position on the topic before I provide mine.
But, in the interest of scholarly congeniality, I will respond to
your request. I have
not yet come to a conclusion, but I am leaning towards option C. My
database has the
ability to create multiple fields with any field name desired. These
can be used to add
alternate spellings and will be exported as notes. I plan on linking
these individual
spellings to the specific reference/source that I use. I think that
by doing this I will
provide anyone accessing my documentation with the best information
available, in order to
ease their searches for more information.
Now could you please provide an explanation of your conventions and
reasons you adapted
it?
Thank you,
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Dear Richard ~
Your first sentence in your post gives us pause. Referring to me, you
ask: "Is is always necessary to ignore the original request for
information, and ask for the questioner's views on the subject?" Then
you say: "I find this very condescending."
I often answer questions directly here on the newsgroup, and by private
e-mail. For you to suggest otherwise is just being silly. However, if
I believe the person is baiting me with a trick question (as you have
done), I've learned from past experience to ask the person to state
their position first. Then we get right to the heart of the issue of
what they want to ask, without any pretense. And, in their response,
they usually reveal their negative attitude towards me if they have
one, just as you have done.
I'm sorry you find this all condescending, but people play games here
on the newsgroup. They also imagine things that never occurred. Right
now, for example, we have CED jabbering on and on in another thread
saying that I have "betrayed" my "lack of understanding" of my own
posts in the past. CED feels I need someone to interpret my own words,
because I'm unable to do so myself. I thought I had seen everything
here on the newsgroup. But this one takes the cake. Whew!
Now, to answer your own question, here we go. You apparently are
looking for a single convention to employ in the standardizing of names
in your database. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy. You are dealing
with complex language patterns which involve the interaction of three
different languages, English, French, and Latin, over the course of
many centuries. Due to the complexity of this interaction, it is
impossible to find one single convention to handle all situations
regarding names. Also, I might note that English itself has been
changing as it passing through time. So we have lots of variables, few
constants.
In the 20th Century modern historians have been engaged in the process
of modernizing and standardizing given names in their scholarly works.
The same is true for surnames. Right there you have two processes
going on, not one. While this a bit complex, the application of these
principles do work. On the whole, historians have successfully adopted
standardized name forms such as William, Robert, Edward, Henry, Peter,
etc., in
spite of the fact that these names over many centuries were spelled
many different ways. They have also almost entirely eliminated Latin
forms of names from their works, especially for names in usage found
after 1200. I certainly didn't invent these conventions, Richard. I
do approve of them, however, as they save much confusion.
I might add that historians are not in lock step agreement with each
other over the correct forms to use. This is still very much an
ongoing process, particularly with regard to female given names. From
time to time, good scholars can and do disagree. When that happens,
however, a historian usually doesn't tell the other historian that he
finds him "condescending" or that he has "betrayed" his "lack of
understanding." Rather, they are civil, polite, and collegial to one
another. And, that's the way the newsgroup should be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Richard C. Browning, Jr." wrote:
this
of being considered a > subject matter expert in certain areas. When I
am
Your first sentence in your post gives us pause. Referring to me, you
ask: "Is is always necessary to ignore the original request for
information, and ask for the questioner's views on the subject?" Then
you say: "I find this very condescending."
I often answer questions directly here on the newsgroup, and by private
e-mail. For you to suggest otherwise is just being silly. However, if
I believe the person is baiting me with a trick question (as you have
done), I've learned from past experience to ask the person to state
their position first. Then we get right to the heart of the issue of
what they want to ask, without any pretense. And, in their response,
they usually reveal their negative attitude towards me if they have
one, just as you have done.
I'm sorry you find this all condescending, but people play games here
on the newsgroup. They also imagine things that never occurred. Right
now, for example, we have CED jabbering on and on in another thread
saying that I have "betrayed" my "lack of understanding" of my own
posts in the past. CED feels I need someone to interpret my own words,
because I'm unable to do so myself. I thought I had seen everything
here on the newsgroup. But this one takes the cake. Whew!
Now, to answer your own question, here we go. You apparently are
looking for a single convention to employ in the standardizing of names
in your database. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy. You are dealing
with complex language patterns which involve the interaction of three
different languages, English, French, and Latin, over the course of
many centuries. Due to the complexity of this interaction, it is
impossible to find one single convention to handle all situations
regarding names. Also, I might note that English itself has been
changing as it passing through time. So we have lots of variables, few
constants.
In the 20th Century modern historians have been engaged in the process
of modernizing and standardizing given names in their scholarly works.
The same is true for surnames. Right there you have two processes
going on, not one. While this a bit complex, the application of these
principles do work. On the whole, historians have successfully adopted
standardized name forms such as William, Robert, Edward, Henry, Peter,
etc., in
spite of the fact that these names over many centuries were spelled
many different ways. They have also almost entirely eliminated Latin
forms of names from their works, especially for names in usage found
after 1200. I certainly didn't invent these conventions, Richard. I
do approve of them, however, as they save much confusion.
I might add that historians are not in lock step agreement with each
other over the correct forms to use. This is still very much an
ongoing process, particularly with regard to female given names. From
time to time, good scholars can and do disagree. When that happens,
however, a historian usually doesn't tell the other historian that he
finds him "condescending" or that he has "betrayed" his "lack of
understanding." Rather, they are civil, polite, and collegial to one
another. And, that's the way the newsgroup should be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Richard C. Browning, Jr." wrote:
Mr. Richardson,
Is it always necessary to ignore the original request for
information, and ask for the questioner's views on the subject? I find
this
very condescending.
I posted this request in order to get aid from people who have more
experience in this subject than myself. I still consider myself a
neophyte in > genealogy. In my profession, I have obtained a position
of being considered a > subject matter expert in certain areas. When I
am
questioned about my position on a topic in this area, I do not try to
find out what the questioners position on the topic before I provide
mine.
But, in the interest of scholarly congeniality, I will respond to
your request. I have
not yet come to a conclusion, but I am leaning towards option C. My
database has the
ability to create multiple fields with any field name desired. These
can be used to add
alternate spellings and will be exported as notes. I plan on linking
these individual
spellings to the specific reference/source that I use. I think that
by doing this I will
provide anyone accessing my documentation with the best information
available, in order to
ease their searches for more information.
Now could you please provide an explanation of your conventions and
reasons you adapted it?
Thank you,
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
-
Gjest
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Dear Douglas.
While there may be some merit to standardizing spelling
on a limited basis, I am not about to start calling Don Carlos Master
Charles. As We all should be prepared to recognize that Carolus Magnus, Charlemagne
and Charles the Great may all relate to a single individual there seems little
point to the endeavor You wish this group to set forth on In short, that ship
has sailed. Given also the dizzying variety of correct spellings that exist
for names today. Who is to say that the one spelling either You singly or this
Group as a whole chose to embrace as our correct spelling will be viewed as
even close to correct in the future.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
While there may be some merit to standardizing spelling
on a limited basis, I am not about to start calling Don Carlos Master
Charles. As We all should be prepared to recognize that Carolus Magnus, Charlemagne
and Charles the Great may all relate to a single individual there seems little
point to the endeavor You wish this group to set forth on In short, that ship
has sailed. Given also the dizzying variety of correct spellings that exist
for names today. Who is to say that the one spelling either You singly or this
Group as a whole chose to embrace as our correct spelling will be viewed as
even close to correct in the future.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Because the original and subsequent spellings of medieval names differs
not only from language to language but also from contemporary document
to contemporary document concerning the same individual, it makes sense
that the onus be on the researchers to simply learn the variants. When
publishing, either include a glossary explaining your choice and
showing known variants, or simply list the known variants on the page.
I know that this may strike some as awkward, but the nature of the
subject matter, in my opinion, requires it.
not only from language to language but also from contemporary document
to contemporary document concerning the same individual, it makes sense
that the onus be on the researchers to simply learn the variants. When
publishing, either include a glossary explaining your choice and
showing known variants, or simply list the known variants on the page.
I know that this may strike some as awkward, but the nature of the
subject matter, in my opinion, requires it.
-
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
RE: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Dear Douglas,
Comments interspersed for clairity.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Yes I do find someone who wants to know my position on a subject is before responding to a
request for information or assistance to be condescending. And as you admit you often do
this. It makes me think of politicians, who think the response should reflect what the
questioner wants to hear.
True, often you do answer questions directly here and I suppose by private email, but you
also have been known to ignore questions or requests for clarification directed to you.
Both those posted to the list and private emails sent to your email address. I don't
suggest this; I declare it openly, from personal experience.
What trick question, I merely pointed out an inconstancy in two posts that you had made,
which as I said, contributed to my confusion. I then asked the group for information to
assist in easing my confusion about this subject and in helping establishing a naming
convention for my database and for documents using that data. Your initial response to my
request was entirely unhelpful. That is what caused my negative attitude towards me.
What does this have to do with my considering your response condescending? The only thing
is that he saw the same inconsistency I observed.
No it is not easy, which is why I posted the question in the first place.
Yes these interactions are extremely complex but I disagree with the impossibility of
establishing a single naming convention for my data. I do recognize that it will not be a
simple convention. I think establishing a single convention covering all periods, regions
and languages, properly documenting and consistently using it will lead to stability in
the data and documentation while allowing ease of use for those that might eventually use
my data as a starting point for further research.
But if an experienced historian treats a request in what appears to be a condescending
manner, what should the requester do? And nowhere in my posts did I use the word
"betrayed" and the only "lack of understanding" I mentioned was my own, which was why I
asked.
Thank you Douglas for the your information, I will meld what I can from it into my Naming
Convention.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Information from previous posts deleted to avoid clipping. See the archive for this thread
is review is necessary
Comments interspersed for clairity.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
[mailto:royalancestry@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 11:59
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Naming Conventions in Genealogy Documentation
Dear Richard ~
Your first sentence in your post gives us pause. Referring
to me, you
ask: "Is it always necessary to ignore the original request for
information, and ask for the questioner's views on the
subject?" Then
you say: "I find this very condescending."
Yes I do find someone who wants to know my position on a subject is before responding to a
request for information or assistance to be condescending. And as you admit you often do
this. It makes me think of politicians, who think the response should reflect what the
questioner wants to hear.
I often answer questions directly here on the newsgroup, and
by private
e-mail. For you to suggest otherwise is just being silly.
True, often you do answer questions directly here and I suppose by private email, but you
also have been known to ignore questions or requests for clarification directed to you.
Both those posted to the list and private emails sent to your email address. I don't
suggest this; I declare it openly, from personal experience.
However, if
I believe the person is baiting me with a trick question (as you have
done), I've learned from past experience to ask the person to state
their position first. Then we get right to the heart of the issue of
what they want to ask, without any pretense. And, in their response,
they usually reveal their negative attitude towards me if they have
one, just as you have done.
What trick question, I merely pointed out an inconstancy in two posts that you had made,
which as I said, contributed to my confusion. I then asked the group for information to
assist in easing my confusion about this subject and in helping establishing a naming
convention for my database and for documents using that data. Your initial response to my
request was entirely unhelpful. That is what caused my negative attitude towards me.
I'm sorry you find this all condescending, but people play games here
on the newsgroup. They also imagine things that never
occurred. Right
now, for example, we have CED jabbering on and on in another thread
saying that I have "betrayed" my "lack of understanding" of my own
posts in the past. CED feels I someone to interpret my own words,
because I'm unable to do so myself. I thought I had seen everything
here on the newsgroup. But this one takes the cake. Whew!
What does this have to do with my considering your response condescending? The only thing
is that he saw the same inconsistency I observed.
Now, to answer your own question, here we go. You apparently are
looking for a single convention to employ in the
standardizing of names
in your database. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy. . . .
No it is not easy, which is why I posted the question in the first place.
You are dealing
with complex language patterns which involve the interaction of three
different languages, English, French, and Latin, over the course of
many centuries. Due to the complexity of this interaction, it is
impossible to find one single convention to handle all situations
regarding names. Also, I might note that English itself has been
changing as it passing through time. So we have lots of
variables, few
constants.
Yes these interactions are extremely complex but I disagree with the impossibility of
establishing a single naming convention for my data. I do recognize that it will not be a
simple convention. I think establishing a single convention covering all periods, regions
and languages, properly documenting and consistently using it will lead to stability in
the data and documentation while allowing ease of use for those that might eventually use
my data as a starting point for further research.
In the 20th Century modern historians have been engaged in the process
of modernizing and standardizing given names in their scholarly works.
The same is true for surnames. Right there you have two processes
going on, not one. While this a bit complex, the application of these
principles do work. On the whole, historians have
successfully adopted
name forms such as William, Robert, Edward, Henry, Peter, etc., in
spite of the fact that these names over many centuries were spelled
many different ways. They have also almost entirely eliminated Latin
forms of names from their works, especially for names in usage found
after 1200. I certainly didn't invent these conventions, Richard. I
do approve of them, however, as they save much confusion.
I might add that historians are not in lock step agreement with each
other over the correct forms to use. This is still very much an
ongoing process, particularly with regard to female given names. From
time to time, good scholars can and do disagree. When that happens,
however, a historian usually doesn't tell the other historian that he
finds him "condescending" or that he has "betrayed" his "lack of
understanding." Rather, they are civil, polite, and collegial to one
another. And, that's the way the newsgroup should be.
But if an experienced historian treats a request in what appears to be a condescending
manner, what should the requester do? And nowhere in my posts did I use the word
"betrayed" and the only "lack of understanding" I mentioned was my own, which was why I
asked.
Thank you Douglas for the your information, I will meld what I can from it into my Naming
Convention.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Information from previous posts deleted to avoid clipping. See the archive for this thread
is review is necessary