Fw: Ancestors & Descendants

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12 nov 2007 08:15:33

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Ingham" <christopheringham@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Ancestors & Descendants

<snip>

But seriously, I was not arguing your point, just merely mentioning an
alternate way to designate relations, as this had not come up in some
current related threads.

Christopher Ingham
Dear Christopher,

As far as I am concerned there are times people should be precise----and
there are times there is no need to be precise.
Often the press gets things so wrong, even though they should show they
know what they are talking about and when they make gaffes it is just
terriblel. A term that is taken often wrongly is step- and half-, and it is
so dreadful when they either do not know what the relationship is or they do
not know what the terms mean.

With best wishes
Leo

Renia

Re: Fw: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av Renia » 12 nov 2007 10:43:02

Leo van de Pas wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Ingham"
christopheringham@comcast.net
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Ancestors & Descendants

snip


But seriously, I was not arguing your point, just merely mentioning an
alternate way to designate relations, as this had not come up in some
current related threads.

Christopher Ingham

Dear Christopher,
As far as I am concerned there are times people should be precise----and
there are times there is no need to be precise.

Exactly, which is why "ancestor" does just fine for any aunt or uncle so
many generations removed, regardless of whether you are a direct
descendant of them, hence the use of the term "direct descendant". The
same applies to a first or second cousin contemporary with an era under
discussion.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Fw: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 nov 2007 16:42:57

Nonsense...

Bafflegab.

An aunt, uncle or cousin of any degree is not an Ancestor in Genealogy and
any attempt to portray one as an Ancestor is Fraudulent Charlatanry...

But one may refer to them as ancestral aunts, uncles and/or cousins without
fear of condemnation.

_Ancestral_, the adjective and _Ancestor_, the noun, obviously have quite
different connotations.

Eschew Fraud, Charlatanry & Bafflegab in Genealogy, Gentle Readers.

Don't call aunts, uncles and cousins of any degree ANCESTORS.

People have Ancestors and Descendents [if they are lucky and heterosexual],
therefore there is NO need for the infantile expressions "direct
descendants" and "direct ancestors", which are redundant and juvenile.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fh975v$n85$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Exactly, which is why "ancestor" does just fine for any aunt or uncle so
many generations removed, regardless of whether you are a direct
descendant of them, hence the use of the term "direct descendant". The
same applies to a first or second cousin contemporary with an era under
discussion.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 nov 2007 03:14:37

Dead Wrong...

This has nothing to do with differences between American and British
English, such as "elevator" and "lift" -- and everything to do with simple,
clear, cogent, concise Genealogical English for everyone.

An aunt, cousin or uncle of ANY degree [e.g., 23rd Great-Grandaunt, 17th
cousin three times removed, etc.] should NEVER be called out as an ANCESTOR
of the Root Person, by a competent Genealogist.

To do so would be Fraudulent, Charlatanistic, Sloppy and Despicable --
clearly designed to mislead and confuse the reader.

However, "ancestral great-grandaunt" and "ancestral cousin" are quite
acceptable -- when more precise data are not available.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fha330$2ti$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Nonsense...

Bafflegab.

An aunt, uncle or cousin of any degree is not an Ancestor in Genealogy
and any attempt to portray one as an Ancestor is Fraudulent
Charlatanry...

But one may refer to them as ancestral aunts, uncles and/or cousins
without fear of condemnation.

_Ancestral_, the adjective and _Ancestor_, the noun, obviously have quite
different connotations.

Eschew Fraud, Charlatanry & Bafflegab in Genealogy, Gentle Readers.

Don't call aunts, uncles and cousins of any degree ANCESTORS.

People have Ancestors and Descendents [if they are lucky and
heterosexual], therefore there is NO need for the infantile
expressions "direct descendants" and "direct ancestors", which are
redundant and juvenile.

Because YOU say so? Brits speak Brit-English. You speak US-English. As
I've said often enough, divided by a common language.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fh975v$n85$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Exactly, which is why "ancestor" does just fine for any aunt or uncle so
many generations removed, regardless of whether you are a direct
descendant of them, hence the use of the term "direct descendant". The
same applies to a first or second cousin contemporary with an era under
discussion.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»