GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-03 > 0953161250
From: "Rafal T. Prinke" <>
Subject: Re: More on Collateral Descent
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:50 +0100
Vickie Elam White <> wrote:
> relationships is essential. And that's one reason why terminology is
> so important. As someone else in this thread said, each field has its
> own language and those who chose to work in a field should understand
> that language.
That's true. I have just checked two genealogy books in English which
I think can be treated as representative of the field and found
the controversial phrase used by their distinguished authors.
Here are the examples I located in a few minutes:
Gerald Hamilton-Edwards, _In Search of Ancestry_:
"being able to prove a direct descent in the male line from a companion
of the Conqueror at Hastings"
"a proved descent from Aelfine [...] down to Dr. George Arden, who is
27th in direct descent" (p. 3)
Sir Anthony Wagner, _Pedigree and Progress_:
"of the seventieth generation in direct descent from King David" (p. 76)
Thus the questionable phrase seems to be part of the English
genealogical language - whether it is logical or not.
There are many other expressions in "genealogical English" that
I do not find quite logical or obvious - but not being a native
speaker, I take them as they are. One example that makes me
grin are those "removed cousins". Don't remove too many of
them, so that you have some left! And how do they get back
there and have to be removed many times? :-)
To confuse things further, there are differences between British
and American "genealogical English". The American "pedigree" means
"birth brief" in British (unless it covers dogs or horses!), while
the British "pedigree" is "descendant chart" in American.
A note to Leo: if Wittgenstein's point is true, why do so many
students of his _Tractatus logico-philosophicus_ keep discussing
"what the author really meant"? :-)
|Re: More on Collateral Descent by "Rafal T. Prinke" <>|