In a message dated 10/26/2004 10:59:56 AM Central Standard Time, starf@ssisp.com writes: > I am new to the list and sure you have already had this discussion but > can't find it in the archives. > Does anyone know about a discussion, about the E on the end of the name > CLARK in the year 1865? > I appreciate your help. > Star I don't know if there has been a discussion of this issue or not. However, I do know that my family was notably inconsistent about the use of the final 'e.' When the family came in from Ireland in the 1700s, they used the final 'e.' After a few decades, though, most had ceased using it -- except for my line. The older generations' tombstones have the 'e' on some and not on others. In fact, spelling of names was apparently not as much of an identity issue then as it is now. I have heard folks argue that this is because people were uneducated and could not read or write. In my family, however, everyone, with very few exceptions, could read and write. But they varied the spellings of their name anyway. Other folks have argued that a lot of the records we look at for our families were created by others (e.g., doctors sending birth certificate data, clerks completing death certificates, census takers completing census forms). This is certainly a valid point. Often, people's names were being spelled by other people fulfilling a service for the family member or the government or the church, etc. On the other hand, finding examples of signatures of a single person that varied according to perhaps mood at the time is not unheard of. I have Adam Clarke's signature on a marriage certificate and Adam Clark's signature on an earlier marriage certificate -- same person, different mood? location? who know! And, just to keep things interesting, his signature on probate documents after his father's death could maybe have an 'e' on it or not!! Handwriting was not clear enough to actually enable us to make an absolute claim one way or the other! In addition to people's names being spelled variously by other folks creating records about them and people's own lack of consistency for spelling their own names, another phenomena was not uncommon in communities. Sometimes, if there were two families in the same community who were not related to each other, one of the families would change the spelling of its family name in order to make it clear from which family a person hailed! So the family might have been Clarke in West Virginia and Clark in Ohio because there was already a Clarke family in Ohio when they arrived. You might also find another naming pattern interesting as you begin your search for your family members. The designations of Junior and Senior were not always used the way they are today. It is possible that two unrelated people from the same community with the same acquired designations of Senior and Junior! In order to clarify which person was which, the older person would become senior and the younger one junior. (That's a kick in the pants for a genealogist!) Furthermore, within families designations of junior or senior could be attached to people who were not father and son (or mother and daughter). I have a McCullough family grouping where this occurred.. Jethro J. McCullough had a son he named Jethro Tull McCullough (the Tull being his mother's maiden name). Jethro J.'s brother Oliver McCullough named his son exactly after Jethro J. Ergo, the nephew was always referred to as Jethro J. McCullough, Jr., and the uncle as Jethro J. McCullough, Sr. (There are still family researchers who have refused to accept evidence to the contrary and insist on putting Jethro J. McCullough, Jr., on the family tree as the son of Jethro J. McCullough, Sr., because they cannot accept that traditions then differed from traditions now.) Just to make your day, at one point in the mid to late 1800s Clark/Clarke was the 7th most common name in the U.S. There are a lot of us who are definitely NOT related to each other living in the same communities!! Good luck with your research! Karen

At 09:59 AM 10/26/04, you wrote: >In a message dated 10/26/2004 10:59:56 AM Central Standard Time, >starf@ssisp.com writes: > > > I am new to the list and sure you have already had this discussion but > > can't find it in the archives. > > Does anyone know about a discussion, about the E on the end of the name > > CLARK in the year 1865? > > I appreciate your help. > > Star > >I don't know if there has been a discussion of this issue or not. However, I >do know that my family was notably inconsistent about the use of the final >'e.' When the family came in from Ireland in the 1700s, they used the final >'e.' After a few decades, though, most had ceased using it -- except for my >line. The older generations' tombstones have the 'e' on some and not on >others. <snip> Just be glad you're dealing with Clark(e) and not Flanagan/Flannagan/Flanegin/Flenakin/about 2 dozen other ways family and functionaries have spelled the name over time :-). Lorena /|\ Searching for: F l a n a g a n (NY state), F l o r i o, C o c c i a, M a r t i n g a n o; F o l e y, F e r g u s o n, M o r g a n <http://users.ev1.net/~ljwolfe/fam-tree/>

Hi Karen, That puzzled me to for some time, I thinks its to cover where some clark/e's for their own reasons(maybe educational) wrote it as it sounded By the way where is your Clark? Kind regards Tas ----- Original Message ----- From: <KarenKayeC@aol.com> To: <CLARKE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [Clarke-Clark] E in Clark(E) > In a message dated 10/26/2004 10:59:56 AM Central Standard Time, > starf@ssisp.com writes: > > > I am new to the list and sure you have already had this discussion but > > can't find it in the archives. > > Does anyone know about a discussion, about the E on the end of the name > > CLARK in the year 1865? > > I appreciate your help. > > Star > > I don't know if there has been a discussion of this issue or not. However, I > do know that my family was notably inconsistent about the use of the final > 'e.' When the family came in from Ireland in the 1700s, they used the final > 'e.' After a few decades, though, most had ceased using it -- except for my > line. The older generations' tombstones have the 'e' on some and not on others. > > In fact, spelling of names was apparently not as much of an identity issue > then as it is now. I have heard folks argue that this is because people were > uneducated and could not read or write. In my family, however, everyone, with > very few exceptions, could read and write. But they varied the spellings of > their name anyway. Other folks have argued that a lot of the records we look > at for our families were created by others (e.g., doctors sending birth > certificate data, clerks completing death certificates, census takers completing > census forms). This is certainly a valid point. Often, people's names were being > spelled by other people fulfilling a service for the family member or the > government or the church, etc. On the other hand, finding examples of signatures > of a single person that varied according to perhaps mood at the time is not > unheard of. I have Adam Clarke's signature on a marriage certificate and Adam > Clark's signature on an earlier marriage certificate -- same person, different > mood? location? who know! And, just to keep things interesting, his > signature on probate documents after his father's death could maybe have an 'e' on it > or not!! Handwriting was not clear enough to actually enable us to make an > absolute claim one way or the other! > > In addition to people's names being spelled variously by other folks creating > records about them and people's own lack of consistency for spelling their > own names, another phenomena was not uncommon in communities. Sometimes, if > there were two families in the same community who were not related to each other, > one of the families would change the spelling of its family name in order to > make it clear from which family a person hailed! So the family might have > been Clarke in West Virginia and Clark in Ohio because there was already a Clarke > family in Ohio when they arrived. > > You might also find another naming pattern interesting as you begin your > search for your family members. The designations of Junior and Senior were not > always used the way they are today. It is possible that two unrelated people > from the same community with the same acquired designations of Senior and > Junior! In order to clarify which person was which, the older person would become > senior and the younger one junior. (That's a kick in the pants for a > genealogist!) > > Furthermore, within families designations of junior or senior could be > attached to people who were not father and son (or mother and daughter). I have a > McCullough family grouping where this occurred.. Jethro J. McCullough had a > son he named Jethro Tull McCullough (the Tull being his mother's maiden name). > Jethro J.'s brother Oliver McCullough named his son exactly after Jethro J. > Ergo, the nephew was always referred to as Jethro J. McCullough, Jr., and the > uncle as Jethro J. McCullough, Sr. (There are still family researchers who > have refused to accept evidence to the contrary and insist on putting Jethro J. > McCullough, Jr., on the family tree as the son of Jethro J. McCullough, Sr., > because they cannot accept that traditions then differed from traditions now.) > > Just to make your day, at one point in the mid to late 1800s Clark/Clarke was > the 7th most common name in the U.S. There are a lot of us who are > definitely NOT related to each other living in the same communities!! > > Good luck with your research! > Karen > > > ==== CLARKE Mailing List ==== > Resources at RootsWeb - is your Clark-Clarke webpage linked here? > http://resources.rootsweb.com/~clusters/surnames/c/l/CLARKE/ > http://resources.rootsweb.com/~clusters/surnames/c/l/CLARK/ > >