A Chathail a chara / Hi Charles, In Ó Catháin, the th is pronounced as an h. In most dialects á is pronounced like aw. But in Ulster, it's usually ah (although there is one dialect variation I know of). The result is that Catháin is pronounced as 2 syllables rather than one, with even stress across the two syllables. (Originally stress is on the first syllable in Ulster Irish but the accent mark on the a in the second syllable evens out the stress.) Would you have the Irish spelling on Cooey Na Gaal? Sorry to say that this anglicization makes it impossible to identify his real name. Le gach dea-ghuí / Best, Jerry Cló an Druaidh / The Druid Press www.druidpress.com -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:54 AM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] 111-Marker RESULTS As one of the "Cain/Kanes" mentioned by Sandy (regarding off-modal matches in the trans-67 markers), let me make several comments: 1.The O'Kane history is recounted in some detail in a book by T.M. Mullin and J.E. Mullan titled "The Ulster Clans." 2. At least one origin of the McHenry surname is dated in this book to the early 1400s. Henry O'Cathain was the son of Dermot who died in 1428. Dermot's father was Cooey Na Gaal O'Cathain (have to like that name!). 3. Because of this reference, and because the largest non-Cain group of matches I find on FTDNA are the McHenrys, I am unsure of Sandy's hypothesis regarding a divorce between the McHenrys and O'Kanes. Whatever you find Sandy, I am really interested. 4. And finally, since my first North American ancestor arrived in 1740, I am a little rusty in the old language. So, how do you pronounce "O'Cathain?" Is the "th" silent? Charles Cain
Jerry A sound file pronouncing O'Cathain would be helpful. From readings, my guess is that the evolution into English went something like: O'Cathain....O'Cahan....O'Kane....O'Cain....Cain Family history says my ancestor "Mikel O'Cain" came from Ireland in 1740 to New Jersey. My thinking on an O'Cathain origin of "Cain" comes from DNA matches to O'Cathains in Ulster (Derry) and DNA matches to the McHenry surname, historically related to the O'Cathains. It would be interesting to be convinced otherwise (maybe Sandy can help), but that's my working hypothesis. A link to Scotland would be interesting. I also assume the evolution of the name into English came after the Plantation in 1600 when the clan must have fallen on very hard times. It was 140 years from the Plantation to immigration to New Jersey. I internet searched (Google) on Cooey-na-Gall O'Cathain and found, for what it is worth, the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Cahan wherein is says the translation is "Cooey-na-Gall" means "Terror of the Stranger." I had assumed from other readings that it meant something more like "under influence of foreigners" or something similar. Apparently the O'Cathains had been involved in reformation of the Irish church along more continental lines. The link http://ulsterman3.tripod.com/Tomb_Dungiven.htm suggests the O'Cathain in question had a daughter who married a " MacDonald Lord of the Isles" (discussed earlier here?) which further indicates foreign influences. So I assume you can now give us what is probably the correct Irish spelling? Thanks for your interest. Charles Quoting Jerry Kelly <jerrykelly@att.net>: > A Chathail a chara / Hi Charles, > > > > In Ó Catháin, the th is pronounced as an h. In most dialects á is > pronounced like aw. But in Ulster, it's usually ah (although there is one > dialect variation I know of). > > > > The result is that Catháin is pronounced as 2 syllables rather than one, > with even stress across the two syllables. (Originally stress is on the > first syllable in Ulster Irish but the accent mark on the a in the second > syllable evens out the stress.) > > > > Would you have the Irish spelling on Cooey Na Gaal? Sorry to say that > this anglicization makes it impossible to identify his real name. > > > > Le gach dea-ghuí / Best, > > Jerry > > > > Cló an Druaidh / The Druid Press > > www.druidpress.com > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles Cain > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:54 AM > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] 111-Marker RESULTS > > > > > > As one of the "Cain/Kanes" mentioned by Sandy (regarding off-modal matches > in the trans-67 markers), let me make several comments: > > > > 1.The O'Kane history is recounted in some detail in a book by T.M. > > Mullin and J.E. Mullan titled "The Ulster Clans." > > > > > > 2. At least one origin of the McHenry surname is dated in this book to the > early 1400s. Henry O'Cathain was the son of Dermot who died in 1428. > Dermot's father was Cooey Na Gaal O'Cathain (have to like that name!). > > > > > > 3. Because of this reference, and because the largest non-Cain group of > matches I find on FTDNA are the McHenrys, I am unsure of Sandy's hypothesis > regarding a divorce between the McHenrys and O'Kanes. > > Whatever you find Sandy, I am really interested. > > > > 4. And finally, since my first North American ancestor arrived in 1740, I am > a little rusty in the old language. So, how do you pronounce "O'Cathain?" Is > the "th" silent? > > > > Charles Cain > > > > > > 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 >
Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers becomes obvious from this chart. In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to my knowledge) by anyone else. In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is likely true from other considerations. Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my 448=16 colleagues and myself. Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the 448=16 mutation occurred. Charles
Hello, Charles et al, As you know, I don't work with GDs, but rather with RCCs. I am glad that your studies have borne our my time scale. Be careful of over-interpretation because mutations can occur in DNA that will not be reflected in the position on the phylogenetic tree. You raise an interesting point in your email -- The junction points on the tree are where mutations took place that cause surname branching. I have not spent a lot of time trying to tie down just which markers are the ones that have changed. They could be any one of them, including the set that are often referred to (by others, not me) as modal values. I think there is gold to be discovered if researchers were to look at the junction points on the tree and see which DYS markers did the changing. With best regards to all, - Bye from Bill PS - I taught at the University of Michigan between 1959 and 1964 in the astronomy department. I see you have a U of M email address. Are you there, or are you an alumnus? Both our kids were born in Ann Arbor and we enjoyed our stay there. On Jun 26, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Charles Cain wrote: > Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms > we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose. Under each > new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always > jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too > lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers > becomes obvious from this chart. > > In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane. We have compared > notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal > match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. > However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to > my knowledge) by anyone else. > > In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to > be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800. If > fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the > Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up. Also, his ( > Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to > New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! > > Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) > is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above. This > is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family > religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant > ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. > > On one of the DNA tree charts (I think based on Bill Howard's > computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 > years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is > likely true from other considerations. > > Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching > of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years. If Bill > Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each > site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) > occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 > after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. > > In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible > common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches. I has worked for my > 448=16 colleagues and myself. > > Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above > exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the > 448=16 mutation occurred. > > Charles > > > > > 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