GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-08 > 1093134299


From: "Bernd Burgey" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] unexpected results
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:24:59 -0300
References: <1cf.29406837.2e5904e8@aol.com> <4127AE7C.7000300@kerchner.com> <009f01c487d6$a012e340$6401a8c0@HP>


HI Diana,
you're right on the money with your definition on Straub, Strauss
ect. but
according to Goole: Straub results are: 387000 and Stroup: 102000
and when the Straub arrived in the New World the did not had to
spell there Name. They had Papers. Although you are right with
illiteracy but this applied foremost to Women until the mid 19
hundreds. It was more the transliteration of German handwritten
papers of a non English Alphabet, the German "Sidolin" into a
English spelling and the Rule of thumb: write like you her it!.
Regards
Bernard

---- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] unexpected results


> I've been working with the STRAUB surname (intensely) for six
years, so I'm
> aware of the variations. The earliest known STRAUB immigrant, a
Palatine to
> New York in 1710, converted immediately to STRAUP, and most of his
> descendants then to STROPE or STROPES. Most other 18th century
STRAUB
> immigrations were to Pennsylvania, and most of them converted to
STROUP,
> which is the predominant variant, today, among those with an early
> immigrant. There are many STROUPs, today, especially in the
south, who had
> a Dutch/Westphalian origin, STROOP. There were also two differant
STRUB
> immigrants, one to Pennsylvania, whose descendants are mostly
STROUP, and
> one to Virginia, whose descendants are mostly STROOPE.
>
> I believe the early immigrants had the spelling of their name
Anglicized
> because they were illiterate farmers and didn't know how to spell
their
> name. Beginning in the mid-19th century, you see STRAUB
immigrants hanging
> on to the original spelling, I presume because they arrived
literate and
> able to spell their name. In the case of my family, although my
(supposed)
> GG-grandfather was born in PA in 1797, he was a merchant and
literate, so we
> retained the original spelling. Or at least we appear to have.
Maybe the
> problem is that the immigrant adopted STRAUB from something very
different.
>
> To a non-German, STRAUß may *look* like STRAUB, but it doesn't
sound like
> STRAUB. And while I've often seen long-s mis-read as f or p (by
indexers
> and extractors), I've never seen STRAUSS *convert* to STRAUB, or
vice versa.
> Similarly, STRAUBE may look as though it's just a variant of
STRAUB, but in
> German, the former is pronounced in two syllables (terminal E is
not
> silent). When Anglicized, it becomes STRAUBY or STRAWBEE. I've
never seen
> STRAUB and STRAUBE get mixed up in the U.S., and their origin in
Germany is
> geographically different.
>
> All of this was learned the hard/slow way, of course. I have
sections of my
> web site devoted to each of these original surnames:
>
> http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/Str/StrHome.shtml
>
> And here I thought I was being so magnanimous supplying
information on
> STROOP, STRAUBE, and STRUB, in addition to STRAUB. It appears all
my work
> on STRAUB may have been a "donation" to genealogy, as well!
>
> Thank you for your input,
> Diana
>


This thread: