Brian, I'll get involved in this one, also. I would believe that all depends on a time period for our search. Agreed, Hans, Johann and Johannes all translate into English as John but I have found that in the earlier days of most (not all) of the Church Registers which I have attempted to read that Hans is the more oft version of John, certainly in the 1600s and rarely is the gentleman listed with an additional first name. (I've never considered the Germanic naming as first and second names, only multiple first names with one being the Honorary name and one being the Familiar/Ruf name---you can get into other areas away from Baden and find a string of six or seven baptismal names given to a child and you assume the first given name is the Honorary and then try you to figure out from additional Rite entries which would be the Ruf name.) Johannes seemed to follow in time, again John, to us, but with no additional name. Johannes seemed in the Registers which I searched as being more common in the 1700s. Then a jump to the later 1700s and the 1800s and I have found Johann attached as with another name, usually as the Honorary, with the additional first name being the Ruf name. I would imagine that we have all found these in a some variance depending on our specific area of search but Hans, Johannes and Johann all do lead us into John. When we "translate", no true difference. How the family used the individual's name would be the key but unless that individual was important enough to have left history/details in writing we may never know so we live with what we can find from the Church Registers. djweber djwdjw@ix.netcom.com -------------------- -----Original Message----- >From: brian@amason.net >Sent: Apr 25, 2008 4:06 PM >To: deu-bad-ortenau@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [Ortenau] kinship book for Kippenheim: Stulz > >On Thu, April 24, 2008 12:40 pm, Wendelin Irslinger wrote: >> >> >>> > What is the difference between Johann and Johannes? Is that like >>> > John and Johnathan? >> No difference between Johann and Johannes and they were maybe called >> Hans. >> >> >> - Wendelin >> >I have to disagree with the great and wonderful Wendelin on this point. > >Everything, I've learned of these two names says they are treated very >differently. While they are both "John", one is a special version of >John, while the other is a plain ordinary John. Just like any good >Conspiracy Theory, Johan(n) persons always, as a rule, are part of a three >name naming convention (i.e. Johann Sebastian Bach). Whereas Johannes is >never, as a rule, accompanied by a second name (i.e. Johannes Kepler). Of >course, rules get broken all the time, but this seems to be a pretty firm >rule in at least pre-20th Century Germanic nations. This is only a result >of my experience, study and research in German genealogy and Wendelin is >far more acquainted with all things German than I, and all things >genealogical. I would like to know his reasoning for saying there is no >difference though, since it is contrary to everything I ever seen, read, >or heard regarding those names. > >Humbly submitted for your approval, >Brian