* Can FH tell the differance between no surname and unknown surname

[KFN]

Many of my relatives had no surname. They used a patronymic naming convention where they did not have a surname. In GEDCOM there is a difference between:

1 NAME Caroline Oldsdatter // {unknown surname}
vs
1 NAME Caroline Oldsdatter {no surname}

It looks like to me that when I import a GEDCOM,
1 NAME Caroline Oldsdatter
is exported to a new GEDCOM as
1 NAME Caroline Oldsdatter //

[AdrianBruce]

... In GEDCOM there is a difference between:
1 NAME Caroline Oldsdatter // {unknown surname}
vs
1 NAME Caroline Oldsdatter {no surname}
...

I'm not sure I agree with that. In my copy of GEDCOM 5.5.1, page 55 starts with

Examples:
William Lee (given name only or surname not known)

In other words, there is an explicit example saying that there is no difference between an unknown surname and no surname.

...
It looks like to me that when I import a GEDCOM,
1 NAME Caroline Oldsdatter
is exported to a new GEDCOM as
1 NAME Caroline Oldsdatter //

I can simplify that - if I open a GEDCOM (no importing necessary) containing a name on the pattern of:
1 NAME Caroline Oldsdatter
then if I save that same GEDCOM (no exporting necessary), it gets saved as:
1 NAME Caroline Oldsdatter //
And given that GEDCOM appears to record no difference between an unknown surname and no surname, then this seems a reasonable thing to do.

I've had the luxury of not needing to think too deeply about this in the past - in my case
1 NAME Agnes //
means Agnes had an unknown surname. But if I discovered my (theoretical) Welsh ancestors had patronymic names, then I might need to think a bit more deeply about whether it should be
1 NAME Thomas ap Owen //
given that it's theoretically unclear whether this means Thomas had no surname or it means Thomas had an unknown surname. In reality, of course, I'd just know he had no surname, because I'd know. I might add some notes, somewhere, to explain this to outsiders.

Of course, personal viewpoint warning, I suspect that what I'd actually write would be
1 NAME Thomas /ap Owen/
on the basis that he did have a family name, he just didn't have a fixed surname.... That's the bit that everyone seems to omit - they treat "surname" as equivalent to "fixed, inheritable surname", whereas I don't think it's anything of the sort! ( Let the brickbats commence! Insert icon for mushroom cloud... ) I'm totally certain other people's mileage will vary but to what extent that's tradition and to what extent it's logic, I'm not sure.

[KFN]

I see that v5.5.1 example, that example and suggestion has been removed in v7 of GEDCOM.

Based on discussion, The inclusion of "//" may in the future indicate "Unknown" and the lack of a "//" would mean no surname!

[tatewise]

The way I read it is 5.5.1 does not allow // so FH is producing invalid GEDCOM, whereas 7.0 does allow // and no slashes.

In 5.5.1 Page 56 NAME_TEXT {Size=1:120} specifies at least 1 character.
Page 54 NAME_PERSONAL allows NAME_TEXT without slashes otherwise /NAME_TEXT/ needs at least 1 char between slashes.
The various options allow the forename and or the suffix to be omitted.

Similarly in 7.0 Page 32 2.8. Personal Name allows nameStr without slashes otherwise [nameStr] "/" [nameStr] "/" [nameStr] where each optional nameStr must be at least 1 char i.e. nameStr = 1*nameChar
So in this case no slashes and empty // are both allowed but their meaning is not defined.

[AdrianBruce]

The way I read it is 5.5.1 does not allow // so FH is producing invalid GEDCOM, whereas 7.0 does allow // and no slashes.
...

You could be right - I just looked at the example (which I have tutted over others doing, I confess). Arguably the "name" specification is "wrong" in that at least one part of the name requires the bits to be comma separated - for instance:

Different name prefix parts are separated by a comma.

According to that, "Captain The Reverend John Smith" should actually be "Captain, The Reverend John Smith", which is plain wrong if you regard that as the representation of the name (disregarding the // bit). There's also:

Different surname articles are separated by a comma, for example in the name "de la Cruz", this value would be "de, la".

Same objection. But I'm not wholly convinced I understand it all clearly.

... Based on discussion, The inclusion of "//" may in the future indicate "Unknown" and the lack of a "//" would mean no surname!

Well, my IT background says that would make sense if clearly agreed, because it's always important to distinguish between an attribute (in the broadest sense) being unknown and the same attribute being known to be empty. As per the title of this thread!

I'd not really looked at GEDCOM 7 up to now. Re my slightly tongue in cheek comment about whether patronyms should go in the surname / family name, GEDCOM 7 appears to define Surname as:

A family name passed on or used by members of a family.

"Passed on" is heritable in my book, so "passed on" would appear to exclude patronyms. But "used by members of a family" would appear to allow them, given that all the sons of one father would be (say) "ap Owen ap Meredudd ap Tudor". Hmm. Confused? (And does it matter? Well, yes it does if you're relying on hints or generated enquiries matching the way stuff is indexed).

[LornaCraig]

Hmm. Confused?

I notice that on the FH mailing list someone has just asked ChatGPT for a ruling on a question about Gedcom. Maybe you could try that! .

[ColeValleyGirl]

I asked ChatGPT if it lied:

ChatGPT is programmed not to lie, but it can give false statements, but not lie. It cannot take responsibility for what it says and offers no assurances as to its truth

Received message. ChatGPT is programmed not to lie, but it can give false statements, but not lie. It cannot take responsibility for what it says and offers no assurances as to its truth.

So that's reassuring. Not...

[BEJ]

I’m unfamiliar with the notation, “ap.” What is the meaning in the following context:

1 NAME Thomas ap Owen //

(I Gooogled it, but no useful results returned.)

[ColeValleyGirl]

I’m unfamiliar with the notation, “ap.” What is the meaning in the following context:

1 NAME Thomas ap Owen //

Welsh: son of, or more latterly, child of.

I have a Jane Parry (Jane ap Harry) marrying in Caernarfonshire in 1858. Her father was Harry Prichard or Pritchard, and she reverted to the surname Pritchard when registering her children. (Patronymics clung on quite late in Caernarfonshire, and people swapped between them depending on the context. I suspect the officialdom who registered births were having nothing to do with the old-fashioned ways )

[BEJ]

Ah, thanks.

No Welsh ancestors in my line (that I know of), but I did consider how to handle my Swedish patronymic names. Should I put patronyms and geonyms in the “/surname/” field of FH7? Yes, I have decided to treat them as surnames. This conforms to the given name-surname binary established in GEDCOM and would be expected by many who might use my research, and maintains some consistency, i.e., all known individuals have a “surname.”

[KFN]

Ah, thanks.

No Welsh ancestors in my line (that I know of), but I did consider how to handle my Swedish patronymic names. Should I put patronyms and geonyms in the “/surname/” field of FH7? Yes, I have decided to treat them as surnames. This conforms to the given name-surname binary established in GEDCOM and would be expected by many who might use my research, and maintains some consistency, i.e., all known individuals have a “surname.”

In Norway we held on to the patronymic naming until 1923 when a law was passed that everyone had to have an inheritable surname. I take this law literally and anyone born and died before that date and use a patronymic and farm name does not get a surname in the GEDCOM. Some “upper crust” family groups did have inheritable surnames back as far as the 1700s, they are probably of either German or Danish decent, but rural family only had patronymic names. Iceland still uses patronymic names but when they interact with “the outside”, use those names as if they were surnames just so others don’t get confused. This is why you will see a lot of similar names on the back of Icelandic Football jerseys! They are not all related!

[BillH]

Should I put patronyms and geonyms in the “/surname/” field of FH7?

This is the way I handle it for my Norwegian ancestors. It works well for me. The majority of the folks that I exchange genealogy data with handle their patronymics in the same way.

Bill

[Ron Melby]

KFN, if you go on digital arkivvet it is etternavn or last name in English.

I come from a long line of knudsens in Nord-Aurdal from a Melby farm there, of course there were other patryonimic names there in my clan as well. I see no difference between Knud Knudsen, Knud ap Knud, Knud laMelby, Knud diMelby, Knud vonMelby. Any distinction made between a patronymic name and its offshoots is a distinction without a difference. Even Olaf the Stout had an appellation for differentiation between Olafs in the area, and his area was bigger than most Norwegians. I would have to think that there were more stout and or portly Olafs in Norge in that time. One of the names chosen by another of my relatives -- well one of the English like spellings was Tonsbraaten the name of their farm, it became Bakken well, from Tons' bread to Land or Ground ... all names are an artifice altogether, and the first and last name artifice is one that works well with some ball-peening throughout time and the world. That is how I see it. I am not alone in this world, but I may be alone out here. Vaer saa god.

[KFN]

Ron,

I’m very familiar with the digital archive, at one time I volunteered at a Norwegian Genealogy Center.

[Ron Melby]

I am only starting to become familiar with it, even though I have a year under my belt. it has---- quirks. But I like the idea that your family history is yours with no price. Not a common thing in the world. There are still holes in my genealogy, and I cannot for the life of me figure out how to plug them in digitalarkivvet. I think the free and fairly well detailed da is wonderful, and its only shortcoming that it rather shuts down after 1920. in the US it shuts down at 1950. I think that with a generation being say--- 20 years, that a cutoff of two generations is fine... if there has to be a cut off at all. But I do not make the world, do I? LOL

[elevator]

I think one takeaway is that the GEDCOM standard is not well suited for the many quirks and intricacies of international naming traditions. Like most people from Norway, I also use the surname field to record patronyms and toponyms. I go a step further and use an alternate name for each and every spelling variation found in the primary sources. And those, specially in Norway, can be quite numerous. I think the most important thing to remember in all of this is that at the end of the day we faithfully record the data as it is presented to us in the records. And once that data is recorded, we can each decide how we want to use the limited data fields available to us to present it in the most practical manner. No way is wrong, and as long as we're limited by the GEDCOM standard that's how it has to be.

[KFN]

Elevator,

I agree. Since much of my family started their lives on the farm, their identity (not to confused with name) also includes farm name. This is not any different than so many other culture if you go back in time where the city of origin was part of their identity (Leonardo de Vinci comes to mind).

I’m actively working with the GEDCOM community to add additional ‘identity based’ tags to The Standard so that these additional location based values are entered correctly to support cultures were clan, town, farm, etc. are included in their identity. Many cultures (non-European) today still refer to clans, towns and other geographical locations are part of their identity.

[AdrianBruce]

... I’m actively working with the GEDCOM community to add additional ‘identity based’ tags to The Standard so that these additional location based values are entered correctly to support cultures where clan, town, farm, etc. are included in their identity. ...

Sounds good if it can be done.

... Since much of my family started their lives on the farm, their identity (not to confused with name) also includes farm name. ...

I think that if identity is going to be regarded as something different from (or at least, not exactly the same as) name, then I'd ask that the difference be explained sensibly with examples, rather than simply dumping another item in the list.

And it may also be necessary to expand on just what "farm" as in "farm name" means in practice. For instance, are we normally talking of a single building housing one family only, or are we often talking of a much larger area, perhaps owned by one family, but with a number of rented or leased buildings on it?

I apologise if these are all statements of the obvious but I got intrigued by the concept of this sort of identity being different from name.

[KFN]

Adrian,

I’m not in tune with all cultural aspects in the modern world, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, as it relates to identity. However, I do know that Historically various cultures in Europe, Asia and Indigenous groups, location was a very important aspect of identifying a specific individual. This was used in the same way an individual was identified by who their father was (some by mother) or what tribe, clan, or house.

Before a culture (or country) required people to register their name including a surname, many individuals were known by some combination of given name, plus heritage (patronymic, clan, tribe, house), location (town, farm, other), personal attribute.

This combination could produce identities like:
William the Conqueror,
William the Bastard,
Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci,
Thomas McGregor

In Norway, before a surname was required by law my great great grandfather was know as:
Thorvald Torsson Bruflot
Thorvald Torsson Slettehaug
Thorvald Torsson Skei

These identities differentiate this Thorvald from another Thorvald with a different father or who lived at a different farm.

Given name, patronymic name, resident farm name

Every farm in Norway has a name, usually very ancient. Every rural Kommune has a name (similar to townships or shires).

The resident farm name can change as they move around, but is important to document so that 1) Any other family left behind at the farm can be found. 2) Any additional entries in church books can be for births, confirmations, marriages, movement/relocation tracing, immigration or emigration.

And it may also be necessary to expand on just what "farm" as in "farm name" means in practice. For instance, are we normally talking of a single building housing one family only, or are we often talking of a much larger area, perhaps owned by one family, but with a number of rented or leased buildings on it?

A farm could and very often did, have multiple families and homes on the property. Land for farming is in short supply, labor was plentiful, individuals who did not own a farm or were a younger sibling often moved to various farms with wife and children in tow as laborers. Children very often worked a neighboring farms as soon as they were able.

[AdrianBruce]

...
A farm could and very often did, have multiple families and homes on the property. ...

Yes, I think that's an essential insight, thanks.

...
Every farm in Norway has a name, usually very ancient. ...

Whereas a farm in England could change its name at the drop of a hat, depending on the whims of the farmer. I'm not prepared to put money on it but from (fallible) memory there were two Pear Tree Farms in the parish of Barthomley, Cheshire - though maybe not at the same time... But the vast majority of the land, i.e. of the farms, in that area were part of the same estate belonging to Crewe Hall.

[KFN]

But the vast majority of the land, i.e. of the farms, in that area were part of the same estate belonging to Crewe Hall.

That’s one of the big differences UK vs Norway, very little in the way of “Estate”, most farms in Fjord Country were small, we did not really have a small ruling class of property owners, and the majority of everyone else being renters and laborers.