Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
Newsgroups: soc.roots
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:38:31 -0800
Reply-To:     Lisa Oberg <lisanne@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was
              lisanne@CARSON.U.WASHINGTON.EDU
From:         Lisa Oberg <lisanne@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Johannes Petrus
Comments: To: Roots-L Genealogy List <roots-l@vm1.nodak.edu>

Despite several responses to this question, I'm afraid I am still not sure
of the consensus answer.  To use my favorite example Luxembourg;  the
same individual [my great-great grandfather] is referred to in the Civil and
Church Records as:
                        Jean Pierre Ney         Birth
                        Johannes Petrus Ney     Baptism  Yes, same old story!
                        Johann Peter Ney        Marriage

        alias           John Peter Ney          as he was known in the U.S.

[I will not confuse the issue by telling you the Letzeburgisch nickname he
was referred to by in Wisconsin.]

Now, I have just standardized these individuals with the simple John
Peter, etc when entering the research into MAC PAF 2.1.  Why?  Well for my
own sanity and also because with every spelling variation PAF wants you to
confirm the change.  Same with the Nicholas/Nikolaus/Nicolas and
Maria/Marie/Mary contingents.

PAF also doesn't allow you to give an individual different names for
different events.  I do include information about the actual spelling
found on the record, etc itself in the notes.  As Denis mentioned
recognizing that he was John Peter in the U.S. and some equivalent in
Europe is important to note.

Also, I have no way of actually knowing what it was his parents intended
for him to be called.  Just because he was born during an era of French
recordkeeping in Luxembourg doesn't mean his parents didn't want to call
him Johann.  The clerk may have just been only recording the French
equivalents.  Same for time periods when the records were kept in German.

To get to my question, if I standardize spellings while maintaining the
integrity of the original document's spelling in my notes is that doing
a disservice to those who follow along after me and who [hopefully]
will inherit my research?

Lisa Oberg
lisanne@u.washington.edu

On Sun, 27 Dec 1992, Denis Beauregard wrote:

> In article <1992Dec24.154808.7684@shearson.com> brekshyn@shearson.com writes:
> >In article 92Dec22095549@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu, eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu
> (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
> >>In doing some family research in some Catholic church records, I am
> >>faced with the prospect of reading lots of names in Latin.  My
> >>question is, should I translate them into the vernacular?  If so, how?
> >>In particular, should I write
> >>     Johannes Petrus
> >>     Johannes Peter
> >>  or Johann Peter

[portion of original message deleted]

> BUT...  Jean is John in French.  When some Jean migrated from a French area
> to an English area (i.e. from Quebec to USA), he may likely have changed
> his name to avoid confusion with the female name.  Thus, all pre-migration
> documents will use the Jean name and the post-migration will use John.
> Another hint: it maybe usefull of keeping track of both names.  I used
> to write Jean/John as the general reference (and Pierre/Peter, etc.).
> Now that I plan to use the full GEDCOM standard, I will likely use the
> double name for the general reference, but will append separate NAME lines
> with a time period, i.e.
>
> 1 NAME Jean/John BEAUREGARD/BURGOR
> 1 NAME Jean BEAUREGARD
>   2 DATE PRE-1876
> 1 NAME John BURGOR
>   2 DATE FROM-1876

[more deletions]
Xref: sparky soc.roots:8759 soc.culture.czecho-slovak:582