called "middle name field". I have been asked by one of the Norwegian translators to put up some arguments for
a "Middle name field"
I quote two of Daves (Berdan) mails on the translators list and I'll try to give my reasons in connection to them:
"29. mai, DAVE: I understand now how the naming pattern works. The next thing: Why can't the two names just go in the existing Surname field? (be nice...)"
I would like to be nice but:
In northern Europe Family names didn't exist before the industrialitation during late 1700 and the 1800s.
Before that Family names was used by the nobility and priests for the most (some citicens also f.e.).
But the farmers and farmworkers did't have. They took their Patrynomics or Farm names as family name when they mooved to town.
In church baptize records we get familiar with the child's given name, the father's given name and the farm name (rarely the patrynomics, never both), and the mothers given name. From the witnesses we get indications of what farm the mother came from. Church records occour from between 1650-1700 and to dig further back is combination of land/tax records, censuses and legal documents. Some times a person is known by patrynomics, some times by farm/place and the puzzle is to establish the correct combination of given name, patrynomic and farm name. A further complication is that people changed name if they moved. They took name from the new farm they moved in to. One of my ancestors was born on a farm named Kisland, but changed his name to Fjeldsg�rd when he married a widdow Ingeborg Kristensdotter Fjeldsg�rd in 1829. So this Torkild Pedersson Kisland has his main registration as this and AKA Fjeldsg�rd, but if the Kisland wasn't known I would have main registrated him without surname, but with Fjeldsg�rd as AKA.
Name traditions also gives clues.Usually the first son was named after the fathers father. I the couple settled at the wifes familys farm the first son was named after her father. At some farms two names are followed every second generation from before 1600 to about 1900 when splitting up the rural districts escalated.
The fact is that people were known either with given name and farm name, or given name and patrynomics, almost never all three of them together.
My conclusion is that at least 3 name fields are needed in Northern Europe (and Spanish speaking coutries due to Maternal name habit)
"29. mai, DAVE: So, after reading all these messages I have determined that the reason for the extra surname/farm_name fields (2 additional) is for sorting and searching purposes... If it wasn't for the desire to search and sort, all this could go in one field, right? I guess another reason, in the case of Spanish, is so that we could automatically build the correct surname defaults when adding children."
First section:
Yes Dave, it's for sorting and search, and why:
I want to sort all Fjeldsg�rd includeded AKA in the name list. I want to sort out all sons of Peders to compare in spilt screen/same family file to find hits.
That means that I, and others with me, want to sort both by patrynomics and by surname (farm/location) for research purpose.
Most of my work is research between 1300 and 1600. Beside documents telling direct of family relations I do have to do analyzes of property and herritage rules. After using the tools in Legacy (Make list f.e.) I ussually have to go the hard way: Look for "hits" in the name list for the origin of Patrynomics.
When I have a person in a document with known Patrynomic I enter both that person and the father, I get two generations. Having hits in farm ownership I try to find persons that fits into a pathern.
Both the patrynomics and the farm names are needed and this problem can't be solved by placing the patrynomics either in the Given name Field (as part of the given name), neither in the Surname Field together with the Farm name.
The need of both is showed here: http://digitalarkivet.uib.no/cgi-win/webreg.exe , to sort out the Pedersons I need the farm name in adition to the Patrynomics given by Peder.
Second section:
I'm not that familiar with Spanish name rules, but as far as I understand the childs surname is made like this: the first part is the childs mothers families family name, and the second part the fathers family name. It's obvious that listing both is a great advantage for research purpose (I don't find it apropriate to use AKA for this purpose).
Automatic placing the middle name in the mothers surname field would be a nice feature, like placing the patrynomics in the fathers given name field (needs to be edited, I could even wish birts date estimated 30 years or so before the childs. But for the moment that's to great a demand.
At last: In the main campare of programs in Norway, Legacy is 2 after TMG - the main reason is lack of Norwegian language (which now is being solved)and lack of Middle name field:
http://www.dis-norge.no/slektsprog/testalle.php (I A-Person and IV A-Spr�k (laguage)
I wan't to add a point that could give Legacy an advantage: Independent sourcing of the name fields. When I do my medival research I "build" my names from different sources, and "construct" a complete name with given name, patrynomic and farm/location may need 7,8 10 different sources, and instead of numerious AKAs I could source the name parts independent.
Kristian in Norway
(I adress this to the list and Dave as well
-- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/
To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
