Atta-boy JC for your response to the information on Inquisition victims. It was fortunate that the message was sent to "a solid Goenkar". You gave the lady the right answer. I am so happy that someone with a 'Swiss cheese logic' (Swiss cheese has holes in it - to those not familiar with the same) did not receive the message. Because they would have run with it as another of those wild threads. Frankly you were very polite to her. Perhaps because she was a pakhle munhonn.:=)) ani because she was a bhaile (woman). As I read your post, this was a study done in Brazil. You should have pointed out to her (and please correct me if I am wrong) that not all Colacos or Fernandes in Goa are related to each other. Even more unlikely is a Goenkar Colaco or Fernandes likely related to a Colaco or Fernandes in Brazil whose name was 'pulled out of a hat'.
A Goenkar in Brazil in the 17th century was less likely than one of those currently extinct animals in the Amazon Jungles. So for her to send you this post only reflects this lady's nit-wit logic and perhaps by extension the deductions of the author and the book she is trying to promote. If there was a Lorencio in Brazil in this period and if he was Goenkar and if through DNA analysis he was determined to be my fore-fore-fore bears, the first question I would have asked: What was he doing leaving the true bangarachem Goem in the 17-18 century and his parents and brothers and sisters and perhaps his wife ani ganv-bhav ani ganv-bhoinis and gone to Brazil which at that period in time was worse than a Rat's-hole in the Amazon jungle.:=)) Perhaps, just perhaps, justice did finally catch-up with this Goenkar who may likely have been a piso or a chor or a bebdo if not before, then after he landed in Brazil. That will teach this malcreado a lesson not to go half way across the world looking for excitement.:=)) Please feel free to forward my tongue-in-cheeck post. Regards.
