PDA

View Full Version : Which Surname?


kyuck
17 June 2005, 11:20 PM
Some of my ancestors have changed their surname.
Should I be using their birth surname or the surname they are presently using?

SGilbert
17 June 2005, 11:35 PM
Same here. I use current name and original name in ( ).

You also could separate by a /, however, since I use maiden name/married name that way, I use the ( ).

Also, but somewhat irregular would be original name->present name.

David G. Kanter
18 June 2005, 02:06 AM
Some of my ancestors have changed their surname.
Should I be using their birth surname or the surname they are presently using?For what it's worth, here are my name-entry protocols regarding name changes. (They take longer to describe than to use.)

1. In the regular name fields ("First & Mid Name" and "Last Name") I put whatever is understood to be the last-used legal name. If there is a nickname, rather than using a separate Fact field for it, I put it in the "First & Mid Name" field, enclosed in quotation marks. For example, if Richard Edward SMITH had a nickname of Rick, his "First and Mid Name" entry would be Richard "Rick" Edward. (I chose not to use a Nickname/AKA Fact field

kyuck
19 June 2005, 09:51 PM
[QUOTE=David G. Kanter]For what it

metfordplatt
21 June 2005, 07:41 AM
Same here. I use current name and original name in ( ).

You also could separate by a /, however, since I use maiden name/married name that way, I use the ( ).

Also, but somewhat irregular would be original name->present name.I would never use the forward or backward slashes in the names field as when you export a gedcom, they are used in formatting.

For changes of name, I used these:

1. If it's an official name change, use the official name and note the document in the Misc. notes. Also, you may wish to put the original name in () in the suffix field, or still using () at the end of the first name field. My g-grandfather was William Metford Badcock, but changed his name to William Metford Metford (I know, it's looks strange). He only appears as William Metford, then Metford in the surname field. I used to have (Badcock) in the suffix field, also had (born Badcock) there for a while.

2. If it's a name change because immigrants used different spellings of the same name, I'd put the original name in the furthers. EG Andrius Vasiliauskas, children were all Waselauskas, then the first generation born in America were Wasel. I do this with Platukis and Platt, too.

3. Early immigrants has a variety of spellings. I have a pre-1700 immigrant whose name appears as Johannes Biehn, Been, Bean, Bien, Bun. I've kept the name on the tombstone. Children were Been, Bean, Bien in early wills. I've kept Bien for the second generation. Third gen. is usually Bean (sometimes Been) but kept Bean. That way I can trace the name change over time, and I know instantly which generation the person is from.

4. If you have a common name like Johnson but you can trace one group to Jansen, I have opted for Jansen (Johnson) in the surname field which reflects variety (although by 1850 they were all Johnson). It also keeps straight all the people descended from Claus Jansen from other Johnson people from different branches.

Just ideas...

Michel

STEVE
22 June 2005, 02:11 AM
Some of my ancestors have changed their surname.
Should I be using their birth surname or the surname they are presently using?In general, I use --- BYAS BYERS BYARS for a changing surname, much the same as I would the various surnames a woman might have. That is oldest to newest. Hence, Reunion would select "BYARS" as the name to sort on.

Really, there is no difference here. A woman is born with a family name and then marries into different names (or adopts them on her own). In recording these names we simply upper-case the names to indicate that they are surnames, and then we enter each, oldest to newest, one after the other without punctuation. This is just one of the old conventions that seems to be logical and easy to follow, that causes the absolute minimum of confusion.

Those following Scandinavian type patrilineal or matrilineal lines are probably best served by limiting the recitation of past "-nomics" to some set number. Three seems to be sensible and very useable. The notes would carry a notification and complete listing of the name changes throughout the generations.

Questionable spellings or names are simply (enclosed in parentheses).

Nicknames or alises are typically delinated with "full quote marks".

These somewhat simplistic guidelines have provided me with easily readable and understandable database. In all cases any complications are fleshed-out in the notes.

Steve

Dennis J. Cunniff
22 June 2005, 11:36 PM
In general, I use --- BYAS BYERS BYARS for a changing surname, much the same as I would the various surnames a woman might have. That is oldest to newest. Hence, Reunion would select "BYARS" as the name to sort on.It would be really useful (in the next version) to have a field where one could specify the name someone should be indexed under. That way all Joslin/Jocelyn/Josselin/Joscelines etc. could be indexed together, yet reports would use their name as it actually appears in records.

STEVE
24 June 2005, 02:50 PM
It would be really useful (in the next version) to have a field where one could specify the name someone should be indexed under. That way all Joslin/Jocelyn/Josselin/Joscelines etc. could be indexed together, yet reports would use their name as it actually appears in records.Well, that's really two seperate problems, with two seperate solutions, but your solution to the indexing problem is an excellent one that has been proposed from at least version 2, possibably even version 1, I don't really remember. This solution also encompasses the question of what to do with adopted/step children who don't change their last names and other naming problems.

raybornr
24 June 2005, 07:40 PM
It would be really useful (in the next version) to have a field where one could specify the name someone should be indexed under. That way all Joslin/Jocelyn/Josselin/Joscelines etc. could be indexed together, yet reports would use their name as it actually appears in records.


If nothing else, I would like to see a way to Index using Soundex Code.

kyuck
24 June 2005, 09:26 PM
If nothing else, I would like to see a way to Index using Soundex Code.
It is presently possible to "Sort" the Index by "Soundex - Last Name, First and Mid Name" at the top of the "Index" window. Is this what you are asking for?

Dennis J. Cunniff
24 June 2005, 10:39 PM
It is presently possible to "Sort" the Index by "Soundex - Last Name, First and Mid Name" at the top of the "Index" window. Is this what you are asking for?That would be a "work-around", but it doesn't work for all instances in which it would be good to specify an "index" name. For example, it would be much easier to work with the "von Isenburg" and the "von Ysenburg" families if they were indexed together.

Another reason this solution is less-than-ideal is that switching indexes (Soundex->Last name, and back) takes *far* too long. Some thought needs to be given in future version towards optimizing algorithms for large files - anything involving indexing, including match & merge, takes much longer than is necessary!

David G. Kanter
25 June 2005, 02:34 AM
. . .Another reason this solution is less-than-ideal is that switching indexes (Soundex->Last name, and back) takes *far* too long. Some thought needs to be given in future version towards optimizing algorithms for large files - anything involving indexing, including match & merge, takes much longer than is necessary!Please click here to see the new thread I started regarding my experience with the speed of various operations. (http://www.reuniontalk.com/showthread.php?p=1869#post1869) (I believe a further discussion of that warrants being under a differently entitled thread.)

metfordplatt
25 June 2005, 02:39 PM
It is presently possible to "Sort" the Index by "Soundex - Last Name, First and Mid Name" at the top of the "Index" window. Is this what you are asking for?Actually using Soundex to sort in the index doesn't work. A name like Bien, Bean, Been should all appear as B500, then sort by first name in alpha order (I mean the conversion to soundex works, but it is incomplete). Instead all the Beans come first, then Biehns, then Biens, still all B500, but not strictly alpha order which is an incredible drawback (e.g., B500 Bean, Thomas, should come after B500 Bien, Amanda, not the other way around). There could be something like sort by soundex and retaining the index so you don't see the soundex code, too. That would be REALLY great. But alas, the way Soundex in Reunion works is not ideal because it actually doesn't work.

Michel

raybornr
28 June 2005, 12:31 AM
It is presently possible to "Sort" the Index by "Soundex - Last Name, First and Mid Name" at the top of the "Index" window. Is this what you are asking for?Not Quite - I would like it to work as follows:
Currently when you do a soundex sort in Reunion, the result is:
R165-RABERN Albert N.
R165-RABERN James R.
R165-RABOURN Louis Earl
R165-RABOURN Ralph "Rafe"
R165-RAEBURN Alexander
R165-RAEBURN Charles
R165-RAIBOURN Franklin
R165-RAIBURN Charles L.
R165-RAYBERN Lewis Felix
R165-RAYBORN Clifton Webster
R165-RAYBOURN Allen J.
R165-RAYBURN Edward Thomas Walter
R165-RAYBURN Maurice D

It still alphabetizes the surname and ignores the first name EXCEPT within the "same spelling" of the surname.

True Soundex would ignore the spelling of the last name (after establishing the soundex code) and would only alphabetize the given names.

R165-RAEBURN Al
R165-RAYBOURN Allen J.
R165-RAEBURN Charles
R165-RAIBURN Charles L.
R165-RAYBORN Clifton Webster
R165-RABERN Edward T
R165-RAYBURN Edward Thomas Walter
R165-RABERN James R.
R165-RAIBOURN Jim
R165-RAYBERN Lewis Felix
R165-RABOURN Louis Earl
R165-RAYBURN Maurice D
R165-RABOURN Ralph "Rafe"

STEVE
28 June 2005, 11:13 PM
I can see good reasons to want to see the sorting done either way. Why not have a simple CHOICE of how to sort. First or last name, or any of the dates or whatever data is present. i.e. just pick the column to sort by!!!

STEVE