TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-10 > 1033538046


From: "Stuart Armstrong" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] All at once Family NAME Change?
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 23:54:06 -0600
References: <CHEMKKAJHOKJPIEOPLKDCEJICMAA.clcasper@sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CHEMKKAJHOKJPIEOPLKDCEJICMAA.clcasper@sprynet.com>


Cheri Casper wrote:

>Stuart - If you are using 5.03, you can have all variant spellings but then
>just set the Sort Name so they all sort together.

But what is the POINT? I put all the variants as I see them in the citation detail when I quote the evidence. What is the point in making tags for them? I'm not about to print all the variant spellings of every name in my dataset. Who cares? If variants are important enough to be reported I will discuss them in a note. It will suffice to say in one note attached to the family progenitor that this family name is sometimes spelled in one of a half-dozen different ways, viz. Hindley, Hendley, Hanley, etc.
Otherwise, what is the point of saying ...
He was also known as Joseph Hindley.
He was also known as Joseph Hendley.
He was also known as Joseph Hindly.
He was also known as Joseph Hendly.
He was also known as Joseph Hanley.
He was also known as Joseph Henley.
He was also known as Joseph Hainly.
I don't need the variants for my own reference either, as I will always look up the name under the standard spelling I'm most comfortable with.
On the other hand, if a name undergoes a radical or important change, a name variant tag will be useful. Such as when Gallemore is sometimes listed as Moore, or Pogue as Pollock, or Gauthier is anglicized to Gokey. Those are differences you want to bring to the reader's attention. But random spelling variations are hardly worth mentioning.

Stuart Armstrong
mail to:
web page: http://cgi.aros.net/~stuarta

This thread: