Yes, that's one reason. I research in areas and eras where b-m-d records are non-extant, regular census weren't yet being taken, and portions of the family were of denominations that failed to see a need to make useful baptismal, marriage or burial registers. KNOWING that one particular line had a "Bathesheba" or three in every generation between 1940 and 1840 gives me a thread to pull in discovering the name of the wife of Charles (whose siblings do not include a Bathesheba).
Additionally, it enables me to say "There was only one her-name-here, but apparently there was confusion about her middle name." Her descendants find that fascinating. It also picks up typos of the James ended up Janes and Jane turned into Jame sort. It's essentially another research tool I've found useful in the past, but I really hate the process of getting it out of the toolkit these days. The list I used showed: Ruinson = 725 Junson = 21 Smuth = 2 Jane = 125 Charles = 250 Elizabeth = 250 Cheryl Kathy Thompson wrote: > If a person is doing a one name study, and therefore all the > surnames are, for example, Johnson, they might like to know > how many John Johnson's there are. > > Similarly with a one place study, how many people named > George lived in that one place. > > Yes, they are statistical counts, but then, if you really > think about about it, so is the whole realm of family > history, it's all about statistics. > Statistics that build up and when put together in a logical > order, form the bones of the story of a person's life. > > > > > > > On 22 November 2013 10:16, 2marion wimps <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I am struggling to understand why anyone would want a > count of people with Given Names - I can understand a > count of Surnames but a count of Given Names to me seems > purely accountancy fuelled - not Genealogy - perhaps > someone could explain the reasoning? > Marion > > > On 21 November 2013 22:17, Brian/Support > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Because of the design of the Database you can get > easily get that for > Surnames but not for Forenames. Surnames are stored > in a single Master > Surname List but Given Names are not in a table so > Legacy cannot "count" > occurrences. > > To do so for Forenames we would have to parse every > Given Name field > looking for the break between Given Names to Create > a list of Forenames. > We would then have to sort the list and count the > duplicates to > determine how many times John or Jerry are used. > This is not impossible > but it was a statistic report that has never been > suggested. > > Brian > Customer Support > Millennia Corporation > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com > > We are changing the world of genealogy! > When replying to this message, please include all > previous correspondence. > Thanks. > > On 20/11/2013 6:46 PM, singhals wrote: > > Is there a GOOD kludge to get a COUNT of each > name in the > > database -- as in, how many SMITH surnames, how > many John > > forenames etc etc? > > > > I mean, sure, I can print-to-csv an alpha list, > parse it in > > xcel, and run a count that way, but an older > version of a > > different program /used/ to print me such a list > > automagically in about 4 keystrokes. > > > > Cheryl Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
