TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2011-01 > 1294841627


From: "Teresa Elliott" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] "Conclusions"
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:13:47 -0600
References: <mailman.2409.1293489178.2002.tmg@rootsweb.com><434909.12623.qm@web88304.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <434909.12623.qm@web88304.mail.re4.yahoo.com>


Pierce,
Yes, if recorded the names Jas Jones helps some future researcher find that
same census enumeration, we should. That doesn't mean his name was Jas, or
that he ever used the abbreviation. BY saying "On the 1870 Federal
Population census he was recorded as Jas Jones, age 32...", we are not
saying his name was Jas Jones. We are saying that is the way you will find
him on the census enumeration.

You can choose not to record it, but believe me, doing so has saved me
countless hours of time when I've tried to find him again. Dealing with
names like Lannom, Markham, Blaylock, Gee and the 8 million variations
thereof, I have learned that recording the name as it is on that document
can save me from having to guess how that person was enumerated if I need to
look that name up again for some reason. Plus those name variations that I
would have never thought of have opened up worlds of new research. Never
would I have thought of Blaylock being spelt Blaylight.

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of Pierce Reid
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] "Conclusions"


The census taker may also have used an abbreviation that the family never
used. How many families call their son James "Jas", although that may be the
abbreviation used by the census taker, to save writing a couple of letters.
If so, should that be a name variation that you enter into your database?

Everything we put into our database, possibly with the exceptions of
exhibits, are conclusion we make. We just have to have it make sense based
on all the information we have about the family.

Pierce

This thread: