Family Historian User Group

Re Norwegian Patronymics

ogulbran wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2022 16:02

I was not aware of the "middle" qualifier. [(The MIDDLE qualifier returns all except the 1st given name and /surname/ part from NAME so multiple given names would break the use of MIDDLE as a patronymic extractor)] I will check out if that can help me some way. A challenge can be that not every person has a patronymic (and then no name will be returned if I understand right) - and many people do have two given names plus patronymic plus farm name. A suggestion for development could be to establish a qualifier "surname1", defined as the first of surnames. That would assume that patronymics was in the surname field (which I do not do today, because how I want the searching for surnames to work…). Such a definition would return the patronymic if a person has one - and the surname for other persons (which is wished functionality).

Øivind,

Part of the problem is that in some structures you have

• GivenName(s)+Patronymic

and in others you have

• GivenName(s)+Patronymic+"Surname/Identifier"

- and all variations thereon!

It may be useful to pause and think why we need to distinguish these name parts, and how FH within the existing restrictions imposed by GEDCOM handles those needs.

"Surname" - where that is a Family Name long inherited - is useful for sorting and filtering and giving (in Patrilineal societies) a default "family name" for new children. This is useful in selecting individuals, sorting reports and in spotting duplicates.

However in some countries/eras the idea of a long inherited Family Name is alien and we have to consider if a Patronymic (in the absence of a surname) is a suitable proxy for Family Name. If that is the case surely "for processing" the logic is to put the Patronymic in the Surname Field - despite the field's name. GEDCOM arose from a Western Christian tradition (?) so we accept that fields like "Marriage" are proxies for "relationship", or "Family" for "relationship and its offspring" - so why not similarly for Surname? Treat "Surname" as that part of the name that is not specifically personal?

That then raises the "Farm name". In the absence of a specific field, it either has to go in the Surname with the Patronymic, or we have to be inventive as to what we do with it.

Is the "Farm name" similar to the Geographical identifiers that I sometimes see in English Family Trees (pre civil registration?). I have a "John /Smith/ of Burgh" and a "John /Smith/ of Bow" where both Burgh and Bow are settlements in North Cumberland. (I suspect we see similar in Scotland).

The Geographical identifier could go in the Name Suffix (comma delimited from other suffices), or it could be in a Custom Attribute - applicable to all variations in that person's name. It could go in a %NAME.TYPE% (V7 onwards) which can be specific to a name variantion.

"Type" is specified as "A further qualification to the meaning of the associated superior tag. The value does not have any computer processing reliability. It is more in the form of a short one or two word note that should be displayed any time the associated data is displayed." (In V6 the TITLE.TYPE is described as "descriptor")

Is "Farm Name" closer to being a Supplementary Geographical Identifier or is it closer in nature to being part of the "Family Name" (at least pro tem)? Presumably the Farm Name can have longer currency through the generations than a Patronymic (being a father's Given Name?) in which case should it have primacy when identifying a "Family" ("longer term - patrilineal - family" rather than a specific couple and offspring)?

How do you want these "Names" to sort - either for printing or for selection in a dialogue? Inbuilt existing sorting tends to be on Surname+GivenNames, so stuff in the Name Suffix or Name Type/Descriptor fields will not be automatically used.

I'm sure everyone does it differently and there is no right or wrong way.

I put the farm name in the Surname field and the given names including the patronymic in the given name fields. For example:

Iver Iversen /Berge/

Many trees I see on Ancestry and other sites do it this same way. This tends to keep family members together in lists better.

Bill

A relative of mine Olaf Jarlson Bruflot, never had a surname, Jarlson = patronymic name and Bruflot = a farm he lived on. He also had the name Olaf Jarlson Svedal and Olaf Jarlson Naustdal because he lived on those farms as well. Therefore he never had a surname and middle would not work. Also some individuals had two “given names” plus patronymic plus farm.

I think the term “name” can only refer to a given name as in this case and other cases in history. A prime example is “ Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci”, where his only “name” is Leonardo and the rest just helps to identify the individual within the community. So rather than saying “this is their name” we should say, “this is their identity” or I am know as Leonardo son of ser Piero from the town of Vinci!

GEDCOM committee is looking into a future release to help with this issue.

Italian Patronymics

KFN wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2022 21:25

I think the term “name” can only refer to a given name as in this case and other cases in history. A prime example is “ Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci”, where his only “name” is Leonardo and the rest just helps to identify the individual within the community. So rather than saying “this is their name” we should say, “this is their identity” or I am know as Leonardo son of ser Piero from the town of Vinci!

That is an interesting "take"on the issue - and reminds us that "NAME" is inadequate as an identifier - it is very rare to find in England a totally unique "Given Names + Surname" even when restricting to a generation +/-1. Typically in speech we resolve this with extra detail usually genealogical "Stephen's eldest" or geographical - I had "London Granny" when I was young (the other was "Christmas Granny" rather than "Sussex Granny"!). We don't (currently in the UK) see that extra detail as part of a person's official name.

But the NAME field(s) in FH are also used for filtering, sorting and grouping etc. By Default FH sorts by "Surname, Given Names"; so does it help to think of the "Name" in terms of "Secondary Sort/Primary Sort/" (surname prefixes excepted)? This however can sometimes cause conflict when we want FH to output in sentences.

In a 2017 Thread Convention on Old Welsh Names Mike gave a couple of references which unfortunately are now broken links. Chasing these through searches I have found the modern (as at 2022!) index page to a number of pages about "how to index names".

These pages are the views of The International Journal of Indexing The Indexer "published on behalf of indexing societies worldwide" including The Society of Indexers (UK) - so are not exactly aligned with Genealogical requirements.

The Page on indexing Italian Names discusses both Modern and also Medieval and Renaissance usage.

In modern usage they suggest that names are indexed under Surname (including Prefix) and then Given names, citing as examples:

The Indexer wrote:D’Annunzio, Gabriele
De Sica, Vittorio
Della Casa, Lisa
Di Stefano, Giuseppe

It is not clear if the Capitalisation of the prefix is general practice or just a consequence of their list style. If it is general practice, Mike's plug-in from earlier this year "Match name with Components" will not separate the surname prefix so will produce results consistent with these examples.

However!

The Indexer wrote:Before the modern period (see above), prepositions such as de, de’, degli, dei and de li were not usually part of the surname, so Lorenzo de’ Medici is indexed as Medici, Lorenzo de’.

In terms of patronymics (pre surnames) they seem to suggest indexing by Given name followed by patronymics, "Filippo di Michele di Giovanni". They suggest similarly for geographics, "Leonardo da Vinci". So you get all the Leonardo's together, sub-sorted by geographic - which would tend to imply that you enter him as "/Leonardo/ da Vinci" in FH. But is that what we want for genealogy?

Being surname oriented, I look to at least group by surname which means that (patrilineal) families are at least listed in close proximity? In the FH records window would I want "Leonardo di ser Peiro da Vinci" listed with all the other Leonardo's ("/Leonardo/ di ser Peiro da Vinci"), or would I want him listed with (ideally) all the other "Piero" offspring, possibly sub-sorted by geographic identifier "Vinci" ("Leonardo /di ser Peiro da Vinci/")?

This is easiest achieved by treating the surname as "di ser Peiro da Vinci". That might then be incorrectly(?) split (assuming "ser" is prepositional?) into surname prefix "di ser" and SURN "Peiro da Vinci" - which would imply that it is his dad that came from Vinci not Leonardo. (His dad - Ser Piero da Vinci d'Antonio di ser Piero di ser Guido - did coincidentally come from Vinci - per Wikipedia)! The alternative is to make the geographic "da Vinci" a name suffix, so the "surname" is used to hold just the patronymic(s). Although how you then hold his father's name is beyond me!

In terms of patronymics (pre surnames) they seem to suggest indexing by Given name followed by patronymics, "Filippo di Michele di Giovanni". They suggest similarly for geographics, "Leonardo da Vinci". So you get all the Leonardo's together, sub-sorted by geographic - which would tend to imply that you enter him as "/Leonardo/ da Vinci" in FH. But is that what we want for genealogy?

I would not enter Leonardo bookended with “/“ which indicates a surname!

Indexing in GEDCOM is a known issue (from a database standpoint) because the things we would normally index by, (SURN, GIVN) are optional tags. In many cases we are left with just the NAME tag and other than surname (documented in NAME with a set of “/“ marks), we may not have good access to indexable data. In a patronymic system, when looking for an individual that we know came from a particular area, we may only know a given name, a birth date range, and a patronymic name.

In Norway:

To locate that individual we would first create a list of individuals with their given name equal to the individual. Knowing the given name based on the NAME tag can be problematic because some people include titles in the NAME tag, or for some other reason the first “word” in the NAME tag is not the given name.

From the list of matching given names, we then must search for an individual with a father matching the patronymic name.

From this list we then check the date range of the potential birth.

If this list has multiple individuals, we then cross check the farm name against possible matches, check to see if other family members live on the farm as well or other clues/hints pop out.

Conversely, I may know a potential farm name and given name and need to index individuals based on that junction, then by birth date range, and finally by patronymic.

HOWEVER, in other customs the city/town a person was born in continues along with the individual, this is the case with Leonardo. I think this is also true in other cases when an individual must return to their place of birth when they are counted and taxed.

KFN wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2022 15:40

Indexing in GEDCOM is a known issue (from a database standpoint) because the things we would normally index by, (SURN, GIVN) are optional tags. In many cases we are left with just the NAME tag and other than surname (documented in NAME with a set of “/“ marks), we may not have good access to indexable data. In a patronymic system, when looking for an individual that we know came from a particular area, we may only know a given name, a birth date range, and a patronymic name.

Which is why I was trying to get my head around not the labels we apply to fields (or field elements) but functionally "what they do". So in the FH implementation what is between the slashes is the "Primary Sort", the rest (before and after) is the "Secondary Sort".

Norwegian Patronymics

KFN wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2022 15:40

To locate that individual we would first create a list of individuals with their given name equal to the individual. Knowing the given name based on the NAME tag can be problematic because some people include titles in the NAME tag, or for some other reason the first “word” in the NAME tag is not the given name.

So excluding the issue of supplementary information that should possibly be in the name prefix/suffix, the Primary Sort is the "Given Name" - personal to an individual (but not unique).

From the list of matching given names, we then must search for an individual with a father matching the patronymic name.

From this list we then check the date range of the potential birth.

If this list has multiple individuals, we then cross check the farm name against possible matches, check to see if other family members live on the farm as well or other clues/hints pop out.

So the secondary sort is the Patronymic.

The farm name, if anything is a tertiary sort - which FH cannot explicitly handle in the GEDCOM restricted name structure. So either compound it with the Patronymic or put it in the name suffix and create a sort with the name suffix tacked on the end.

So purely for sorting (e.g. in the records window), do we enter "/Personal Name/ Patronymic FarmName" (i.e. in an East Asian ~surname~ first format). That will get the records window to do what you want. Assuming that FH handles "Surname First" names correctly in reports etc., is there any reason that such a "entry scheme" would not work- forgetting the actual labels applied to the fields and subfields?

What happens with non-farm dwellers either in rural areas (farm labourers living in a village) or in urban areas? Is there an equivalent "geographical" to "FarmName"?

KFN wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2022 15:40

Conversely, I may know a potential farm name and given name and need to index individuals based on that junction, then by birth date range, and finally by patronymic.

For those circumstances does a query sorted by Farm Name / Given Name / Birth Date / Patronymic work - where the fields would have to be:'
Farm Name - Name Suffix NSFX
Given Name - Name between the slashes (NAME:SURNAME) - with the slashed word first
Patronymic - Name outside the slashes (NAME:GIVEN) (the fact that the Farm Name might be concatenated on to the end - see previous - does not effect the sort.)

I can't see a way to programmatically recognise the Farm Name in FH as currently set up. Entering it initially in the Name Suffix (if necessary comma delimited from other Name Suffixes) is tidier, but the Farm Name is not then visible to the standard First and Last Name filter boxes on record selection dialogues.

What appears on Family Tree Diagrams; how is the Farm Name - which can vary, possibly a large number of times, over a lifetime handled? Is it not shown or do you use the Farm Name at birth as the heading in an individual box? Or potentially show all names even when they are all the same except for the Farm Name?

How do people sign (a) informal letters, (b) formal documents (contracts, birth marriage/death/registrations etc.)? And how are people described in such registers?

Are these considerations common to Sweden (there was at one, fairly recent, stage a joint Kingdom)?

What happens with non-farm dwellers either in rural areas (farm labourers living in a village) or in urban areas? Is there an equivalent "geographical" to "FarmName"?

Im not 100% sure of the timing but definitely prior to the mid 1800’s most Norwegians lived on farms and used the patronymic system. Urban families (villages were not a thing) tended to live like urban families from the rest of Europe, and generally used their last farm name or patronymic name as a written surname in city census documents (most census was run either by Danish or Swedish officials)! Also, a lot of urban dwellers in Bergen, Oslo and other larger cities were foreign immigrants at some time in the past, so while they were now Norwegian they already had surnames from their previous countries.

After the large emigration of rural Norwegian (1860’s to 1910) and additionally a lots of farmers moved to the cities, the demographics changed and a law was passed in 1923 requiring they identify an inheritable family name, which normally was either their patronymic or farm name.

Before the modern period (see above), prepositions such as de, de’, degli, dei and de li were not usually part of the surname, so Lorenzo de’ Medici is indexed as Medici, Lorenzo de’.

Philosophically, I find that I have a problem with this sort of statement, which is "How do they know?" Did Lorenzo fill in a form neatly dividing his name into the various parts, with one box for Surname? No, I doubt it very much.

Indeed, even very recent individuals in the UK can't have their name parsed "properly" because they had a compound family name that was not hyphenated. If they only wrote the name down on ordinary pieces of paper, we get no clue whether Albert Brown Chalmers (say) is Albert Brown /Chalmers/ or Albert /Brown Chalmers/. I have exactly this problem - the family currently appears to regard it as an unhyphenated compound family name but it started out as a surname-used-as-middle-name. Or at least, I think it did! The point is that there is rarely any means to tell Albert Brown /Chalmers/ from Albert /Brown Chalmers/, given that GEDCOM conventions aren't followed by officialdom.

It's also difficult to reconcile people's views when some are adamant that patronymics aren't surnames while others, myself included, are relaxed about them being regarded as such. (For the avoidance of doubt - I agree that patronymics aren't inheritted surnames, but that wasn't my question!)

I'm not totally sure where this leaves us other than perhaps needing some more precisely defined (and agreed) terms?

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2022 23:26

TheIndexer wrote:Before the modern period (see above), prepositions such as de, de’, degli, dei and de li were not usually part of the surname, so Lorenzo de’ Medici is indexed as Medici, Lorenzo de’.

Philosophically, I find that I have a problem with this sort of statement, which is "How do they know?" Did Lorenzo fill in a form neatly dividing his name into the various parts, with one box for Surname? No, I doubt it very much.

I see where you are coming from and perhaps we have a Renaissance scholar who can explain; I can only ponder ...

We (in the UK) do have Church records (albeit not neatly boxed until the civil law started to legislate for such records). Such records might say "Sat 7th Feb, baptized Stephen, the son of Jacob and Mary Smith, of Beaumont". So perhaps in Italy we have "baptized Lorenzo, son of Medici and Maria of Florence" - the comma is then significant, they did not baptize "Lorenzo de'Medici" (given and patronymic) but Lorenzo, the son of the man called Medici and his presumed wife Maria.

Likewise we might have had the "Medici" Coat of Arms rather than the "de'Medici" Coat of Arms.


Names compounded out of a number of names are slightly different as clearly they could be two distinct names as opposed to de' Medici which is a single distinct name with or without a prepositional prefix.

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2022 23:26

there is rarely any means to tell Albert Brown /Chalmers/ from Albert /Brown Chalmers/

Well officialdom do create registers which often take the form Surname, Given Names, but as with anything official, the official may have misheard or misinterpreted the record resulting in young Ralph Vaughan Williams being "Williams" in the school records but known correctly in class as "Vaughan Williams"?

A name becoming compounded is however a matter for the families concerned - usually the head of the family making a conscious choice - and officialdom then followed - but it is only when officialdom follows that we get a "record" of the change. Another reason for wanting to date Name versions!

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2022 23:26

It's also difficult to reconcile people's views when some are adamant that patronymics aren't surnames while others, myself included, are relaxed about them being regarded as such. (For the avoidance of doubt - I agree that patronymics aren't inheritted surnames, but that wasn't my question!)

I can only speak here about Norwegian tradition, where before 1923 patronymic names (Jonhannesson) was not a surname, but after 1923 it was a surname. I’m sure that this was the case elsewhere but only a historical research session would uncover the time this transition occurred.

In Norway for example, my grandfather and one of his brothers took their patronymic as an official surname, while another brother and one sister took the last farm they lived on before moving to the city as their surname. Two older sisters were married already and one took the surname of the farm their husband inherited and the other took his patronymic name!

I can mark these names with dates but also still maintain in my “Names Database” connections to the various identities they had prior to 1923 including the farms they worked on or were born at!

If GEDCOM included a “clan” relationship identity (like my names db) I would use that to keep them connected as a “family” over the years and generations of individuals which starts in the mid 1700’s thru today.

KFN wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 02:10

If GEDCOM included a “clan” relationship identity (like my names db) I would use that to keep them connected as a “family” over the years and generations of individuals which starts in the mid 1700’s thru today.

Well it has:

Gedcom 5.5.1 p43 wrote:CASTE_NAME:= {Size=1:90}
A name assigned to a particular group that this person was associated with, such as a particular racial group, religious group, or a group with an inherited status.

and

Gedcom 5.5.1 p85 wrote:CAST {CASTE}:=
The name of an individual's rank or status in society which is sometimes based on racial or religious differences, or differences in wealth, inherited rank, profession, occupation, etc.

Which appear slightly contradictory, the first making something of "the group", and the second being more focused on the individual's status - which is how I understood it in respect of the Indian Sub-Continent.

I am never sure about radical repurposing of a field, so am a bit twitchy about using Cast(e). However, I suspect that "Clan" is a much invented "Custom Fact".

davidf wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2022 18:55

It may be useful to pause and think why we need to distinguish these name parts, and how FH within the existing restrictions imposed by GEDCOM handles those needs.

I agree. And the other thread, "Names and name changes over time" viewtopic.php?f=32&t=21126&p=129797#p129708, is more important for me to solve my problems.

But I believe that in the "Norwegian" situation it is important to keep the farm name in the surname field - to be able to search for families. The patronymic is in many cases not very useful for that. (Very many people had the same names).

Patronymic in a field that is possible to use in sentences and searching would though have advantages.

davidf wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 09:38

Well it has:

Gedcom 5.5.1 p43 wrote:CASTE_NAME:= {Size=1:90}
A name assigned to a particular group that this person was associated with, such as a particular racial group, religious group, or a group with an inherited status.

and

GEDCOM 5.5.1 p85 wrote:CAST {CASTE}:=
The name of an individual's rank or status in society which is sometimes based on racial or religious differences, or differences in wealth, inherited rank, profession, occupation, etc.

Which appear slightly contradictory, the first making something of "the group", and the second being more focused on the individual's status - which is how I understood it in respect of the Indian Sub-Continent.

Actually, the correct correct tag is:

GEDCOM 5.5.1 page 56 wrote: NATIONAL_OR_TRIBAL_ORIGIN:= {Size=1:120}
The person's division of national origin or other folk, house, kindred, lineage, or tribal interest. Examples: Irish, Swede, Egyptian Coptic, Sioux Dakota Rosebud, Apache Chiricawa, Navajo Bitter Water, Eastern Cherokee Taliwa Wolf, and so forth.

But is not part of the name index which is where I would rather have it. Used in this case as “House of [farm name|clan name]” OR “The kin of Olaf Jarlson Bruflot”.

KFN wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 13:37

Actually, the correct correct tag is:

GEDCOM 5.5.1 page 56 wrote: wrote: NATIONAL_OR_TRIBAL_ORIGIN:= {Size=1:120}
The person's division of national origin or other folk, house, kindred, lineage, or tribal interest. Examples: Irish, Swede, Egyptian Coptic, Sioux Dakota Rosebud, Apache Chiricawa, Navajo Bitter Water, Eastern Cherokee Taliwa Wolf, and so forth.

But is not part of the name index which is where I would rather have it. Used in this case as “House of [farm name|clan name]” OR “The kin of Olaf Jarlson Bruflot”.

Ah, thanks that is a better/more appropriate tag - particularly if an association with a farm is "long lasting". Really we want another "Name Part" - possibly CLAN as a Name Piece - because that way it can vary as the name varies, whilst National_or_Tribal_Origin is a single instance. But the name CLAN may not be appropriate even though I image it may be possible to "change clan"?

We have a hierarchy:
National_or_Tribal_Origin - link with a very broad group which is inherited, persistent and unchangeable
Clan - link with a narrower group, which may not be persistent
"Norwegian Farm" type - link with the occupants of a specific location - which is associated with naming but is changeable.


I can't see that in GEDCOM 7 (p56), but I may be looking in the wrong place.

ogulbran wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 12:01

... But I believe that in the "Norwegian" situation it is important to keep the farm name in the surname field - to be able to search for families. ...

Which reminds me... One of the facets about how you encode mat/patronymics, farm-names, etc, etc, is how you want to do searching of databases elsewhere. It's not so bad inside your own FH file or when you're manually creating search criteria to enter into FamilySearch, Ancestry, etc, etc... You have complete control there.

The instance that made me raise an eyebrow was someone entering (and don't quote me on the details here, this is just a for-instance) Welsh patronymics into FamilySearch FamilyTree, in the given-name fields because "Patronymics aren't surnames". OK, fine. But the Poster was then complaining because the single button search of FamilySearch Historical Records wasn't working because FS had indexed the patronymics as surnames.

Well, feel free to make your own decision but if it's incompatible with someone else's indexing data then you have to bear the consequences... This may have a bearing on queries from FH seeking hints in FMP or MyHeritage...

Name Selection with Patronymics

One of the Issues that seems to arise when discussing Patronymics and similar (e.g. Spanish "compound partial-patronymic/partial-matronymic names) is what "belongs between the slashes" which has an impact on FH sorting, but also on Selecting using the Filter boxes found in many dialogues which have separate input for "Last" and "First" names (defined as "between the slashes" and "the rest").

Is there mileage in considering whether this issue could be mitigated by being able to filter not just on "Name" but also on "Name Parts"?

So you would have a single search box and you could enter any part of a name (i.e. any word entered in any of the NAME or Name Part fields) in any order and the impact would be "find me any Name which includes these individual words".

It would not then matter if you put Patronymics inside or outside the slashes.

Further benefits would be:

• If you could not remember the order of names, it would not matter, A search for "Stephen James" would find both "Stephen /James/" and "James /Stephen/" or for "Charles Philip Arthur" would also find "Charles Arthur Philip".
• If it searched over all Name Parts (via say a cached concatenation of all the various Name fields) you could put Geographic identifiers (Norwegian Farm Names or Geographics such as the Vinci in "da Vinci") in for instance the Name Suffix and they would still be found. Genuine Lords (in the Name Prefix) and people with First Name Lord would be equally found. As would messy names like "Alfred Lord Tennyson"

KFN wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 02:10

...
I can only speak here about Norwegian tradition, where before 1923 patronymic names (Jonhannesson) was not a surname, but after 1923 it was a surname. I’m sure that this was the case elsewhere but only a historical research session would uncover the time this transition occurred. ...

Yes indeed, but as background, I would say that some cultures have a much vaguer transition into the use of surnames. I suspect that in the Norwegian case, there were definitions (e.g. of what a surname was), instructions and a specific timescale (plus or minus).

In the British Isles, however, the situation was much more drawn out. My own surname (Bruce) is one of the earliest to be fixed and inheritted, because the first known Bruce was Robert de Brus I, first Lord of Annandale (abt1070–1141). While the spelling slipped from de Brus etc to Bruce, it was inherited. Many other Norman lords of that era followed name patterns like "William fitz Hugh", the son of "Hugh fitz Henry". But the transition to fixed surnames, was somewhat drawn out - the Welsh used patronymics for a long time (e.g. Owain ap Maredudd ap Tudur which recorded both the father Maredudd and the grandfather Tudur) and I once read an article suggesting that disguised patronymics existed in the furthest corners of Wales into the 19th century, because there were a lot of marriages on the pattern of the groom being Thomas Price, and his father being Rhys Jones. ("Price" is basically "ap Rhys", "son of Rhys").

This basically means that in British practice, there are few definitions, no instructions and a timescale of centuries... Difficult to be dogmatic in our case...

davidf wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 17:44

... Is there mileage in considering whether this issue could be mitigated by being able to filter not just on "Name" but also on "Name Parts"? ...

Very possibly - however, we still need to ponder how complex names need to be parcelled up when submitting queries to FMP (say) to find hints.

PS - I hadn't realised that "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" really was a peer of the realm and not someone with a name along the lines of "Duke Ellington". Of course, (puts on best harrumphing voice) "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" isn't actually the correct form of his name.... (OK, I got that from Wikipedia... )

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 18:06

I once read an article suggesting that disguised patronymics existed in the furthest corners of Wales into the 19th century, because there were a lot of marriages on the pattern of the groom being Thomas Price, and his father being Rhys Jones. ("Price" is basically "ap Rhys", "son of Rhys").

I have a Jane Parry daughter of Henry Prichard marrying in 1858 in Caernarvon; her maiden name when her children were born was variously given as Parry and Prichard. Interestingly, the groom did not have a patronymic name (Griffith Roberts son of John Roberts) which belies the theory sometimes put forward that some incumbents disapproved of 'new fangled naming' and applied patronymics even when they weren't generally in use.

davidf wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 17:26

I can't see that in GEDCOM 7(p56), but I may be looking in the wrong place.

Actually what I quoted was from v5.5.1 p56, the wording in GEDCOM v7.0.11 is a little different in section “3.3.2.1 Individual Attributes”

An individual’s national heritage or origin, or other folk, house, kindred, lineage, or tribal interest.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 19:00

... Jane Parry daughter of Henry Prichard marrying in 1858 in Caernarvon; her maiden name when her children were born was variously given as Parry and Prichard. ...

Ah yes - took me a while to work it out, but that's presumably Parry = ap 'Arry = ap Henry.

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 20:33

Ah yes - took me a while to work it out, but that's presumably Parry = ap 'Arry = ap Henry.

Tracking that marriage down warranted a victory lap of my study

Not responding to anyone in particular, just sort of a general commentary; but the majority of my ancestors are Norwegian as well, and I approach names in a source-driven way. Meaning that I record the name as it actually is written in the source. I then choose a "normalized" way to record it for purposes of the FH main display or for reports. But I may have any many alternative spellings because the sources may vary wildly. For example, in many birth records in Norway a child is often just listed with their given name(s), with the father's name and usually the name of farm where they lived at the time. Now, nothing about a source entry like this would specifically indicate what a surname is, and the researcher will often assume a patronym or toponym, but this choice is more subjective than anything. For example in the case of Iver Iversen /Berge/, if the child is listed as Iver with the father Iver living at Berge, then there is nothing in the source to indicate what the surname is. We may as researchers assume Iversen based on patronym rules, or we may assume Berge based on toponym rules, or we may chose both and use Iversen Berge. And then you have a further complication in spelling inconsistencies where Iver can be spelled as say "Iffuer" and the patronym can be "Iversen", "Iverssen", "Iversøn", "Iverssøn", and a host of other combinations using or not using patronym/toponym combinations.

For this reason, what I do with my Norwegian ancestors is that I chose a normalized version of any given ancestor and then record additional name entries for every source where it differs from this normalized version. It may be overkill, but in the absence of a robust way to record such names, I feel that it is prudent to record the data exactly as it appears in whatever source is used.

elevator wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2022 23:33

For this reason, what I do with my Norwegian ancestors is that I chose a normalized version of any given ancestor and then record additional name entries for every source where it differs from this normalized version.

Does my pondering whether filtering of names should be first/surname agnostic offer anything to these circumstances?

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 18:18

davidf wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 17:44

... Is there mileage in considering whether this issue could be mitigated by being able to filter not just on "Name" but also on "Name Parts"? ...

Very possibly - however, we still need to ponder how complex names need to be parcelled up when submitting queries to FMP (say) to find hints.

That is actually a second aspect of the "where do you put patronymics?". Without an answer that is consistent to what is within FMP, Ancestry etc. (which will probably be inconsistent anyway!), hint finding will be problematic.

I don't think, in the absence of a generally (across genealogy, public registration etc.) agreed positioning of patronymics toponymics etc., allowing a "name part" agnostic filtering of "names" makes the situation worse - but does actually help to handle inconsistencies?