Hi, Doug, I appreciate your remarks and your comments are well taken. We must accept the haplotype strings as they are. I don't think the testing agencies make too many mistakes, so it is not a matter of "garbage-in", nor of "garbage-out." The problems lie in overinterpreting what comes out, and most of the problem are directly traceable to unknown mutations. That's why I state many times that the errors are of the order of 180 years (SD) so the dates could be off by three times that, provided the distribution is Gaussian, which it probably is. Therein lies the problem if we overinterpret through genealogy eyes. It is not so bad if you have your genetic eyes on, because errors in that realm are expected to be high. For that reason, I feel that the RCC correlation approach may have more applicability in looking into differences in haplogroups. I think I have covered all of this in my FAQs but it never hurts to repeat the admonition about not overinterpreting! It is usually not the 'facts' of DNA that are on shaky ground; it's the interpretation! On Jul 23, 2011, at 3:14 PM, tuulen wrote: > Bill, > > Although I am quite new to DNA-based family research, my background is in > mechanical engineering, where in my student days I spent several years at > advanced mathematics and grinding a lot of equations, to a point where > numerical theories and I became good friends, and on that basis I can > generally understand what your theory is based on and how it works. > > Your theory makes good sense, and could expose many not-so-obvious facts, as > of relations among and between various groups of people. Bravo, good > thinking! > > However, there also is the old dictum, Garbage In = Garbage Out, and so > analysis results are only as good as the data used to generate them. That > goes to my earlier comment, that sometimes DNA facts can apparently be on > shaky ground. The consideration is that DNA itself is apparently not 100% > stable, that it could remain stable for hundreds or perhaps thousands of > years, but then suddenly and unpredictably mutate, such that apparently it > is possible for DNA between a father and his son to not be a 100% match, and > that the chances for such random mutation apparently tend to increase > proportionally to time, as the longer the time period considered the greater > a chance for random mutation, or that two people could be unrelated but > could today have a 100% match simply because their DNA had eventually > mutated into an accidentally perfect match. > > In other words, such analysis could be brilliant, but perhaps such > brilliance should be tempered due to an inherent unpredictability of DNA, > and should not be considered !00% infallible. > > It sounds quite promising, however, and I look forward to learning more > about it. > > Doug > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Yes, Doug, and thanks. >> Every time I dig more deeply into the RCC correlation approach, I find a >> slightly different and more exciting application for it. >> I have been notified by the editor of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy that >> my next two papers** will be published together in their next issue. I have >> done a revision of one but am waiting to reply to referee comments on the >> other. >> I am also hoping that FTDNA will become interested in it and I have run a >> test for them recently, generating a 50 testee tree from the haplotypes. >> So it goes…… and, it's fun. >> - Bye from Bill >> >> ** an analysis of the Gordon Clan and using Mathematica on an RCC matrix to >> derive the phylogenetic tree. The first is co-authored by the surname >> administrator of the Gordons, Tei Gordon, and the latter is co-authored by a >> colleague at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Fred Schwab. >> >> On Jul 23, 2011, at 2:21 AM, tuulen wrote: >> >>> Bill, >>> >>> I think I understand how your theory works in general, but let me admit >> that >>> goes well beyond all which I have so far considered, let alone attempted! >>> >>> However, your approach does seem promising, and I look forward to >> learning >>> more about it. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Doug >> >> >> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >> >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Bill, Although I am quite new to DNA-based family research, my background is in mechanical engineering, where in my student days I spent several years at advanced mathematics and grinding a lot of equations, to a point where numerical theories and I became good friends, and on that basis I can generally understand what your theory is based on and how it works. Your theory makes good sense, and could expose many not-so-obvious facts, as of relations among and between various groups of people. Bravo, good thinking! However, there also is the old dictum, Garbage In = Garbage Out, and so analysis results are only as good as the data used to generate them. That goes to my earlier comment, that sometimes DNA facts can apparently be on shaky ground. The consideration is that DNA itself is apparently not 100% stable, that it could remain stable for hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, but then suddenly and unpredictably mutate, such that apparently it is possible for DNA between a father and his son to not be a 100% match, and that the chances for such random mutation apparently tend to increase proportionally to time, as the longer the time period considered the greater a chance for random mutation, or that two people could be unrelated but could today have a 100% match simply because their DNA had eventually mutated into an accidentally perfect match. In other words, such analysis could be brilliant, but perhaps such brilliance should be tempered due to an inherent unpredictability of DNA, and should not be considered !00% infallible. It sounds quite promising, however, and I look forward to learning more about it. Doug On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Yes, Doug, and thanks. > Every time I dig more deeply into the RCC correlation approach, I find a > slightly different and more exciting application for it. > I have been notified by the editor of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy that > my next two papers** will be published together in their next issue. I have > done a revision of one but am waiting to reply to referee comments on the > other. > I am also hoping that FTDNA will become interested in it and I have run a > test for them recently, generating a 50 testee tree from the haplotypes. > So it goes…… and, it's fun. > - Bye from Bill > > ** an analysis of the Gordon Clan and using Mathematica on an RCC matrix to > derive the phylogenetic tree. The first is co-authored by the surname > administrator of the Gordons, Tei Gordon, and the latter is co-authored by a > colleague at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Fred Schwab. > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 2:21 AM, tuulen wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > I think I understand how your theory works in general, but let me admit > that > > goes well beyond all which I have so far considered, let alone attempted! > > > > However, your approach does seem promising, and I look forward to > learning > > more about it. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Doug > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Bill, Yes, as I mentioned in my message, we were talking about different things. What I'm doing with my chart is more in-depth on a one-to-one basis, but nothing as grand as what the Gordon project was about--will take a look at that site during the coming week. I'm supposed to be getting ready for a wedding right now (neighbor's daughter). Allene

Bill, Thank you for the report. It is very interesting. To quote from it: "There is only one McAdam-Milligan. No Grierson-McAdams." I know I am not comparing the same things here--just pointing out the differences. Of the five Mac/McAdam lines, several have matches with a Grierson that's close enough at 37 markers to show up in FTDNA's matches list at the testees' personal pages. Milligans make it into the 67-marker area at those pages, but nobody is close enough to show up at the 111 level there. They and Griersons do appear for all my Mac/McAdams when running searches that go beyond FTDNA's cut-off points though. It's definitely deep ancestry stuff. Some of the matches could be coming from a number of known marriages between McAdams in the Lowlands and Milligans and Griersons there that involved the male taking on his wife's surname. I haven't done any research on that though. I've got seven McAdams who appear to have come from the Lowlands or from Ireland in the chart I'm working on, but four of them haven't tested beyond 12 markers. At a quick glance, they all look like M222, but aren't in the M222 project. Too bad! Allene

John, Agree, and 710 and 712 would appear to be the "fast-mutators" among the set. David On 23/07/2011 11:16 AM, Lochlan@aol.com wrote: > Is anyone working on the new 111 marker set? I know Sandy is. > > Does anyone know if the R1b modal has has been expanded to 111 markers or > is there some kind of L-21 modal that can be used for comparison purposes? > > I'd heard sqawking about this on other lists but Ysearch does not list > the new markers in the same order as FTDNA and omits about 10 of them. > That's going to be a huge problem. > > The good news is the McGee utility now has a beta 111 marker version which > is compatible with FTDNA markers and order. The standard version of the > utility follows the current Ysearch order and markers. > > New: _BETA Y-DNA Comparision Utility: 111 Allele_ > (http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility111.html) > > I see five markers in the 111 set that might distinguish M222. > > 710 > 714 > 549 > 712 > 513 > > Some are stronger than others though. 710 and 712 are barely modal. > > So far I don't see much else. > > > > John

Yes, Doug, and thanks. Every time I dig more deeply into the RCC correlation approach, I find a slightly different and more exciting application for it. I have been notified by the editor of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy that my next two papers** will be published together in their next issue. I have done a revision of one but am waiting to reply to referee comments on the other. I am also hoping that FTDNA will become interested in it and I have run a test for them recently, generating a 50 testee tree from the haplotypes. So it goes…… and, it's fun. - Bye from Bill ** an analysis of the Gordon Clan and using Mathematica on an RCC matrix to derive the phylogenetic tree. The first is co-authored by the surname administrator of the Gordons, Tei Gordon, and the latter is co-authored by a colleague at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Fred Schwab. On Jul 23, 2011, at 2:21 AM, tuulen wrote: > Bill, > > I think I understand how your theory works in general, but let me admit that > goes well beyond all which I have so far considered, let alone attempted! > > However, your approach does seem promising, and I look forward to learning > more about it. > > Thanks! > > Doug

Bill, I think I understand how your theory works in general, but let me admit that goes well beyond all which I have so far considered, let alone attempted! However, your approach does seem promising, and I look forward to learning more about it. Thanks! Doug On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Doug, > Not so. > When this cross-surname discussion started yesterday or today, I was in the > midst of looking at the cross-surname issue. It can be addressed by looking > at the intercluster sections of surname clusters in the RCC matrix. > I will soon post what I found. I will do it on a web site that everyone can > see, and I will explain how to read the results in a separate email to the > List. I am also looking into the spellings of the cross-surname RCC 'hits'. > Stay tuned. > - Bye from Bill Howard > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 7:30 PM, tuulen wrote: > > > All, > > > > The possibilities for such speculation seem virtually endless! > > > > I must constantly "ground" my research in facts, facts and only facts! > > > > And even then the facts can sometimes be on shaky ground. > > > > Doug > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:02 PM, <Lochlan@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> In a message dated 7/22/2011 10:49:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > >> agoforth@moscow.com writes: > >> > >> John, > >> > >> I am in the process of putting together a chart of my MacAdams right > now > >> and hope to finish it before going on vacation in mid-August. I don't > >> know if that will be of any help in adding flesh to the bones though. I > >> only have their history from 1790 on, with smatterings from earlier > >> times in the Highlands, which may or may not be true, plus the > >> aforementioned deep ancestry connections to the Lowland McAdams and the > >> others. > >> > >> I suspect there isn't a lot we can say about most of those surnames > without > >> diving into complete speculation, but I recall posts linking the > >> Griers/Griersons to the Millikins and McAdams via DNA. I saw others by > >> Alan > >> Millikin talking about McCords as well. I don't recall if the Cowans > came > >> up in > >> the same conversation or not. I probably should leave them out of the > >> group. > >> > >> > >> John > >> > >> > >> R1b1c7 Research and Links: > >> > >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I had an email from Alan a few days ago from an internet cafe in Northern Ireland. Seems he was on holiday. Linda McKee Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:31:54 -0400 From: Susan Milligan<similligan@msn.com> Subject: Re: [R-M222] Griers, Millikins, McAdams, Ewings. To:<dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> Message-ID:<BLU0-SMTP833008ED9B3E31A7BBB7FFDA310@phx.gbl> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original I hope Alan Milliken jumps in on this. He's the researcher. I'm mainly an administrator. Susan Milligan

Dear List, I mentioned earlier that I was working on a cross-surname analysis of some surnames within M222. I have posted my results at <http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/M222CrossSurname.pdf> Go there and let me explain what I have done ------------------ I had a list of 184 M222 haplotypes of 16 surnames. I generated an RCC matrix from them. I located the 16 surnames in the matrix. They are in column 1 with the number that were in the cluster. For example, there were 13 Dohertys (or spelling equivalents) in the Doherty cluster. They appeared in 16 identifiable clusters. Each cluster had 15 interclusters, one intersection with all the other clusters. Members of those intercluster regions had one testee from one cluster and one from the other. Then I formed a time slice matrix and set the lower RCC to zero and the upper RCC to 15. This assured that all values in the time slice matrix were members of the bonafide cluster(s). Then I looked at the testees who were in each cluster and members of any other intercluster. The names and numbers in the first column were the surname and the number of that surname (or soundex-equivalents) that were in the cluster. Then, I looked at the RCC points in the intersections of two clusters in the intercluster region. If one testee had 50% or more entries in the intercluster region, I listed the Kit No and name and the percentage of times it appeared in the intercluster at an RCC less than 15. For example, ten (71%x14) O'Doghertys were in the Cowan-Doherty intercluster.100% of the McGovern entries appeared in the Howle-McGovern intercluster. 50% of the Griersons appeared in the Dunbar-Greer intercluster, etc. These are the entries in columns 1-4. These four columns were the raw data. The columns to the right of the brown colored vertical line contain the analysis. In the top double-entry table, you read the entries this way: In the intersection of the Cowan cluster with the Doherty cluster, 71% of the 14 testees in the Cowan cluster appear in the intercluster. In the lower double entry table, we find that the name was O'Dogherty and on the left we see that his Kit number was 38173. Another example: When the 13 members of the Doherty clusters were paired with the McGonigals, we see in the top table that six entries had percentages over 50% McGonigals and those percentages are given in the table; and in the lower table we see the spelling of the names. If there are numbers in the lower table, then the spelling was the same as in the heading of the column. You will note that the Ewing cluster had 15 members but they were so tight that any surname that appeared in the intercluster entries had less than 50% of the possible entries. Now, how to use it -- Look at the intercluster regions that have many entries of RCC under 15. Those entries either represent an evolutionary bridge between the surnames or examples of NPEs or some other goof. To try to avoid problems of NPEs and goofs, I took 50% as the criterion. So, how about recent postings --- I went over a couple of them and picked out what some posters were looking at. Here they are, with my conclusions based on the two tables I have just discussed. There are two Milligan-Griersons. You might want to identify them, see where they lived and see if there is an intersection in their pedigrees. They might match on Family Finder, for example. There is only one McAdam-Milligan. No Grierson-McAdams. There is one Milligan-McCord. But two McCord-McGoverns. The Howle-McGoverns that I mentioned in an earlier postings show up again here. There are lots of connections between the Dohertys and the McGonigals and the McAdams and the McCords as well as the McGonigals and the McLaughlins. I will leave it to you all to explore similarities in spelling, which will surely occur at times when RCC is less than 15, about 1100 AD. You should look at the locations of where these surnames lived because they may well lead to insight about 'inbreeding'. But please read my papers and FAQs. If you don't, this will surely open a real can of worms otherwise (grin!). I do think that analyses like this one afford insight into the relationships between and among surnames (and various spellings) that cannot be found otherwise. All this information comes from the RCC matrix, not the phylogenetic tree, so individual pairs of values will have rather large errors. The phylogenetic tree will average out the uncertainties but it still will not be perfect due to unknown mutations. I have tried to minimize those errors by considering only surname pairs that appeared at a level of 50% or more in the RCC matrix. And you can also see the power of using the time slice matrix. Setting it to an RCC interval of 0-10 will tighten the relationships, and setting it at 0-20 will broaden the relationships found. Enjoy! - Bye from Bill Howard

Is anyone working on the new 111 marker set? I know Sandy is. Does anyone know if the R1b modal has has been expanded to 111 markers or is there some kind of L-21 modal that can be used for comparison purposes? I'd heard sqawking about this on other lists but Ysearch does not list the new markers in the same order as FTDNA and omits about 10 of them. That's going to be a huge problem. The good news is the McGee utility now has a beta 111 marker version which is compatible with FTDNA markers and order. The standard version of the utility follows the current Ysearch order and markers. New: _BETA Y-DNA Comparision Utility: 111 Allele_ (http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility111.html) I see five markers in the 111 set that might distinguish M222. 710 714 549 712 513 Some are stronger than others though. 710 and 712 are barely modal. So far I don't see much else. John

I think you are correct about speculation re: the Milligans and Millikins. We mostly don't, or just barely, connect with each other. We do have some in a loosely formed group with DYS458 = 18 and 389-2 = modal that have some promising similarities with Griersons. These are pretty erratic in the first 37 markers, but modal or one off modal in 38-67. Some have an idea of an origin in Ireland, others can't get across the ocean from the US. We have another group with DYS458 = 18 or 19 and DYS389-2 = 30 and some consistent off modals in 38-67. These mostly are traced to Ulster. I hope Alan Milliken jumps in on this. He's the researcher. I'm mainly an administrator. Susan Milligan ----- Original Message ----- From: <Lochlan@aol.com> To: <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [R-M222] Griers, Millikins, McAdams, Ewings. > > I suspect there isn't a lot we can say about most of those surnames > without > diving into complete speculation, but I recall posts linking the > Griers/Griersons to the Millikins and McAdams via DNA. I saw others by > Alan > Millikin talking about McCords as well. I don't recall if the Cowans > came up in > the same conversation or not. I probably should leave them out of the > group. > > > John >

Doug, Not so. When this cross-surname discussion started yesterday or today, I was in the midst of looking at the cross-surname issue. It can be addressed by looking at the intercluster sections of surname clusters in the RCC matrix. I will soon post what I found. I will do it on a web site that everyone can see, and I will explain how to read the results in a separate email to the List. I am also looking into the spellings of the cross-surname RCC 'hits'. Stay tuned. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jul 22, 2011, at 7:30 PM, tuulen wrote: > All, > > The possibilities for such speculation seem virtually endless! > > I must constantly "ground" my research in facts, facts and only facts! > > And even then the facts can sometimes be on shaky ground. > > Doug > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:02 PM, <Lochlan@aol.com> wrote: > >> In a message dated 7/22/2011 10:49:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time, >> agoforth@moscow.com writes: >> >> John, >> >> I am in the process of putting together a chart of my MacAdams right now >> and hope to finish it before going on vacation in mid-August. I don't >> know if that will be of any help in adding flesh to the bones though. I >> only have their history from 1790 on, with smatterings from earlier >> times in the Highlands, which may or may not be true, plus the >> aforementioned deep ancestry connections to the Lowland McAdams and the >> others. >> >> I suspect there isn't a lot we can say about most of those surnames without >> diving into complete speculation, but I recall posts linking the >> Griers/Griersons to the Millikins and McAdams via DNA. I saw others by >> Alan >> Millikin talking about McCords as well. I don't recall if the Cowans came >> up in >> the same conversation or not. I probably should leave them out of the >> group. >> >> >> John >> >> >> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >> >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

All, The possibilities for such speculation seem virtually endless! I must constantly "ground" my research in facts, facts and only facts! And even then the facts can sometimes be on shaky ground. Doug On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:02 PM, <Lochlan@aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 7/22/2011 10:49:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > agoforth@moscow.com writes: > > John, > > I am in the process of putting together a chart of my MacAdams right now > and hope to finish it before going on vacation in mid-August. I don't > know if that will be of any help in adding flesh to the bones though. I > only have their history from 1790 on, with smatterings from earlier > times in the Highlands, which may or may not be true, plus the > aforementioned deep ancestry connections to the Lowland McAdams and the > others. > > I suspect there isn't a lot we can say about most of those surnames without > diving into complete speculation, but I recall posts linking the > Griers/Griersons to the Millikins and McAdams via DNA. I saw others by > Alan > Millikin talking about McCords as well. I don't recall if the Cowans came > up in > the same conversation or not. I probably should leave them out of the > group. > > > John > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

In a message dated 7/22/2011 10:49:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time, agoforth@moscow.com writes: John, I am in the process of putting together a chart of my MacAdams right now and hope to finish it before going on vacation in mid-August. I don't know if that will be of any help in adding flesh to the bones though. I only have their history from 1790 on, with smatterings from earlier times in the Highlands, which may or may not be true, plus the aforementioned deep ancestry connections to the Lowland McAdams and the others. I suspect there isn't a lot we can say about most of those surnames without diving into complete speculation, but I recall posts linking the Griers/Griersons to the Millikins and McAdams via DNA. I saw others by Alan Millikin talking about McCords as well. I don't recall if the Cowans came up in the same conversation or not. I probably should leave them out of the group. John

This applies not only to surnames. So the abbreviation for William is Wm with a line under the 'm'. The abbreviation for Archibald is Ard with a line under the 'rd'. I've also seen abbreviations without the underlining, but that may be just because what I've seen are type-written transcripts from a type-writer that didn't have an underline facility. Until Jerry wrote a note about nodanna, I had no idea though that it was part of a type of short-hand writing system. I just knew they were abbreviations. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Kelly Sent: 22 July 2011 16:28 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] the underlined 'c' Hi Craig, You wrote: > My question is this: my grandfather always signed his surname with an > underscore under the raised lowercase c. Was this a) an affectation? > b) a 19C typesetters convention? or c) a signifying indication of some > sort? The underlined c is shorthand for 'ac'. So Mc (here I've underlined the c but I'm not sure it will get through our list's server) is shorthand for 'mac' ('son'). When typewriters and lead type came in, the underline replaced the much older manuscript shorthand form which placed a short line over the c instead of under it. 'Mc' with a short line over the c was the original Gaelic shorthand (called 'nod' in Gaelic) for 'mac'.

Interesting, I had read that the Mackays of Ugadale had no connection with the Mackays of Strathnaver? Though the pedigrees I have found make both branches from Aodh mac Gallbairt. I also came across an Ulster family of MacAoidh called MacKey. > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Craig McKie <craig@mckie.ca> wrote: > > > My given surname is McKie. This was originally Macaoidh in Gaelic. The > > seminal historical man was one Aie MacEth, rusticated from Strabane to > > the coast of Sutherland sometime near the end of the first millenium > > or so it is said. Nevertheless I was once berated by a woman at the > > Gaelic Society in Inverness for not adopting the 'official' anglicized > > spelling, MacKay.

MacAodh - Son of Hugh, has to be one of the names with the most variants spellings today, as you have: McKay, Kay, Kaye McKey, McKee, Key, Kee McKie, Mackey, McHugh, McCue, McQ Cheers, Paul On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Bernard Morgan <bernardmorgan@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > Interesting, I had read that the Mackays of Ugadale had no connection with > the Mackays of Strathnaver? Though the pedigrees I have found make both > branches from Aodh mac Gallbairt. I also came across an Ulster family of > MacAoidh called MacKey. > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Craig McKie <craig@mckie.ca> wrote: > > > > > My given surname is McKie. This was originally Macaoidh in Gaelic. The > > > seminal historical man was one Aie MacEth, rusticated from Strabane to > > > the coast of Sutherland sometime near the end of the first millenium > > > or so it is said. Nevertheless I was once berated by a woman at the > > > Gaelic Society in Inverness for not adopting the 'official' anglicized > > > spelling, MacKay. > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Aodh means 'Fire' or 'Flame', so it's an excellent warrior-name, and therefore very popular. 'Hugh' is its English cover-name, like Cornelius for Conchobhar, Darby and Jeremiah for Diarmuid, Joan for Si/obha/n, Winifred for U/na, etc. Le gach dea-ghui/ Best, Jerry

You are very welcome, Allene. Le gach dea-ghui/ Best, Jerry ________________________________ From: Allene Goforth <agoforth@moscow.com> To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Sent: Fri, July 22, 2011 11:49:11 AM Subject: Re: [R-M222] the underlined 'c' Jerry, That makes a LOT more sense to me that what I found a few days ago. Thanks for posting the information. Allene R1b1c7 Research and Links: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jerry, That makes a LOT more sense to me that what I found a few days ago. Thanks for posting the information. Allene