GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211737216


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Separate Paternal Lineage (SPL)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 13:40:16 -0400
References: <991066.75736.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com><7kincaids%40primus.ca$142.154.19.142$.136CB69AD1FA4D5CA01D78B9F8F90F46@PeterAKincaiPC>
In-Reply-To: <7kincaids%40primus.ca$142.154.19.142$.136CB69AD1FA4D5CA01D78B9F8F90F46@PeterAKincaiPC>


We've had this discussion on the list before, and the consensus was that NPE was
a poor choice. The problem is in over-turning long-standing usage. No one has
adopted the changes suggested back then, and probably no one will adopt the
changes being suggested now. The answer, for me, is to stop taking the term
literally, which appears to work in practice because I don't think anyone else
takes it literally, either.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Peter A. Kincaid
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 12:26 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Separate Paternal Lineage (SPL)
>
> The point is that non paternity suggests something amiss
> in a particular line when there are many cases where
> it was a different origin altogether. In the absence of
> a paper trail, we have no way of knowing if a person
> does not match one group because of a true non paternity
> or simply a separate alternative origin (common in
> names such as Smith). By applying the phrase non paternity
> there is the suggestion of true versus illegitimate/improper.
>
> Peter
>

This thread: