Hi Kirsten: What you're saying makes sense. Like you, I already add "my" chosen spelling as [Botheridge] to reports that spell the surname differently.
I know one researcher who has chosen Brotheridge as his spelling of the family name. I guess because I don't know any living Botheridge's (or Blotheridge's/Brotheridge's for that matter) I'm worried about having chosen the wrong variation of the name. Of course nothing says further research won't lead me to a different spelling I guess. So, in my recent example: a document with "Jane Blotheridge" (but should have been Jane BOTHERIDGE). Can I still use it to source her name? Funny, I have no problem with Mc's and Mac's, but for some reason I'm having a harder time wrapping my head around Br/Bl/Botheridge. Thanks, R man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ralf: > > If you show the alternate surname spelling as an > AKA, aren't you saying that > the individual was *known as* what could simply have > been a clerk's > interpretation? It seems that would be misleading > and would also become > tedious in reports. With surnames prone to many > spelling variations (and I > have one with over 100 variations), I generally use > a standardized spelling. > In source citations such as a census or a military > muster, I show the name > exactly as it was spelled on the record and > frequently add [sic] to indicate > that it isn't a typographical error on my part, but > I don't list the > variations as AKA's; that could give some of my > individuals 3-4 different > AKA's. > > Over time, some of my family branches used a > different spelling, and if I > have records written in their own hand with that > spelling, then I "migrate" > that branch to the new variation. Many times the > variation is apparently > caused by regional accents. It's interesting to see > the spelling go from > Merckel (German 1710) to Marakle (New York 1750) to > Markle (Canada 1800). > You can almost hear the individuals pronouncing > their names, although none > of them actually wrote it themselves until the very > late 1700's. > > Kirsten > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Ralf X > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 7:56 AM > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: [LegacyUG] Names VS AKA > > > I have an odd trio of surnames: > > BOTHERIDGE, Blotheridge and Brotheridge > > BOTHERIDGE is the version I have decided to go with > as > that was the surname my great-grandmother signed on > her marriage register. (This was the first time I > can > find someone in this line signing their own name.) > > I have two quesions: > > 1. Since they show up so often, would the other > variations (Blotheridge, Brotheridge) be considered > AKA's? > > 2. If #1 is yes, would you input only the surname in > the AKA box or their first name too? There is no > issue > with first names, only the surname. > > Thanks, > > Ralf > > > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > To unsubscribe: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
