Pam, Jim, et al, I'm curious, has Elizabeth Shown Mills published a "study," or at the least, her arguments against the existence of naming patterns and/or their usefulness when conducting genealogical research? If so, where would it be found? Chris Chester On Jul 20, 2010, at 11:53 AM, James Brady wrote: > Hi Pam and Perry, > > Well since I've been dragged into this against my better judgement, > I'm also > not aware of any "studies" on Flemish or French naming patterns. > > If you read the whole APGlist naming patterns thread that Pam > referenced > you'll see one of the reasons why I'm no longer on that list. > Professional > and scholarly genealogists, with no experience in Dutch Colonial > genealogy, > such as we have, declaim that "naming patterns" are wives tales > since no > "studies" have proven them to exist. Rosalie Fellows Bailey can be > discounted, because while she was an FASG, she published in a less > rigorous > era. > > I'm all for rigor. And the scientific method. But the use of > "studies" to > prove naming patterns is problematic. Mills did a "study" to see how > many > children were named after their baptismal sponsors. How many > children would > have been named after their sponsors if a naming pattern like the > one early > Dutch colonists used was in use? NONE. The child's name would have > been > dictated first and if it matched a sponsor the causality would be > reversed, > or happenstance. > > How would you prove a naming pattern was used in the Dutch Colonies? > You > would need accurate, well-constructed genealogies to start with, but > to get > those you would need a genealogist who was very familiar with the > naming > pattern. In other words you would need a biased observer to get an > accurate > database that an unbiased analyst could use to hunt for naming > patterns. > Hardly scientific. > > Jim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Pamela J. > Sears > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:37 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] > ASKIN[G]/GARRISON/LUTEN/MARTINEAU/OLIPHANT;Staten Island & NJ; 1600s+; > plus FOUNTAIN/PERRINE/+ > > > Hi Perry, > >> Pam: >> >> Thanks! I can always count on you for a helpful response :) >> >> I don't know anything about the origins of John ASKIN[G] but Walraven >> LUTEN was from Flanders... >> >> "Walraven Luten from Flanders wife & infant [NWI]" >> >> As copied from http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/ships/nnship11.shtml >> >> If Hester (DELAHAILL) (LUTEN) MARTINEAU was the wife named in the >> record above, then she was from Flanders as well. So it seems most >> likely that Walraven & Hester were Flemish or Dutch. Walraven & >> Hester >> named a daughter Hester and she, in turn, apparently named children >> John [name of father], Mary [name of maternal aunt], Abraham [name of >> maternal uncle] and Elizabeth >> so it seems like this family was honoring loved ones in traditional >> ways. >> >> On the chance that Walraven & Hester were French, like Hester's >> second >> husband, the French reportedly followed this pattern: >> >> "Every first-born son was generally named after the paternal >> grandfather. The second-born son was named after the maternal >> grandfather. >> >> The first two daughters were generally named after their >> grandmothers, >> order would flip-flop depending on whether one was dead or not. Since >> maternal mortality was high, you'll often see the name of a deceased >> grandmother being used over and over again." >> >> As copied from >> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070516062324AAIEiUZ >> >> Perry > My goodness Perry. Who is Genevievesmom? :-) > > I see no source citations (documentation) in the above, and this is > certainly not something I would use in a scholarly article [i.e. > Genevievesmom said its true]. In fact, Elizabeth Shown Mills (leading > genealogy author, speaker and former editor of the NGS Quarterly) > would > argue decidedly against any naming patterns, and has (repeatedly): > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/apg/2005-12/1134362369 > > The key issue, according to Ms. Mills, is this (in response to James > Brady): > >> But "well-known" doesn't equate to *documentation* of a pattern. If >> all we can say is "well-known," then what that means is "Everybody >> says it, and it's panned out for me a few times, so it must be true." >> :). We still need actual *studies* to *prove* what's asserted. > > > > Of course, those of us close to the issue of Dutch naming conventions > would heartily disagree, and perhaps cite the following for support: > > Rosalie Fellows Bailey's "Dutch Systems in Family Naming: New York-New > Jersey" (National Genealogical Society Special Publications, No. 12 > 1954), and Kenn Stryker- Rodda "New Netherland Naming Systems and > Customs." The Record 126 (1995):35-45 (New York Genealogical and > Biographical Society). > > > But, the above articles do not address naming patterns from the > perspective of the French or Huguenots or the Flemish and I'm not > aware > of one that does. > > > Regards, > Pam Sears > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

Hi Chris, You might start here and then look around at other replies in that thread: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/apg/2005-12/1134411627 But I'm not aware of her having published her thoughts on this in one piece. Jim -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Chris Chester Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] ASKIN[G]/GARRISON/LUTEN/MARTINEAU/OLIPHANT;Staten Island & NJ; 1600s+; plus FOUNTAIN/PERRINE/+ Pam, Jim, et al, I'm curious, has Elizabeth Shown Mills published a "study," or at the least, her arguments against the existence of naming patterns and/or their usefulness when conducting genealogical research? If so, where would it be found? Chris Chester On Jul 20, 2010, at 11:53 AM, James Brady wrote: > Hi Pam and Perry, > > Well since I've been dragged into this against my better judgement, > I'm also > not aware of any "studies" on Flemish or French naming patterns. > > If you read the whole APGlist naming patterns thread that Pam > referenced > you'll see one of the reasons why I'm no longer on that list. > Professional > and scholarly genealogists, with no experience in Dutch Colonial > genealogy, > such as we have, declaim that "naming patterns" are wives tales > since no > "studies" have proven them to exist. Rosalie Fellows Bailey can be > discounted, because while she was an FASG, she published in a less > rigorous > era. > > I'm all for rigor. And the scientific method. But the use of > "studies" to > prove naming patterns is problematic. Mills did a "study" to see how > many > children were named after their baptismal sponsors. How many > children would > have been named after their sponsors if a naming pattern like the > one early > Dutch colonists used was in use? NONE. The child's name would have > been > dictated first and if it matched a sponsor the causality would be > reversed, > or happenstance. > > How would you prove a naming pattern was used in the Dutch Colonies? > You > would need accurate, well-constructed genealogies to start with, but > to get > those you would need a genealogist who was very familiar with the > naming > pattern. In other words you would need a biased observer to get an > accurate > database that an unbiased analyst could use to hunt for naming > patterns. > Hardly scientific. > > Jim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Pamela J. > Sears > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:37 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] > ASKIN[G]/GARRISON/LUTEN/MARTINEAU/OLIPHANT;Staten Island & NJ; 1600s+; > plus FOUNTAIN/PERRINE/+ > > > Hi Perry, > >> Pam: >> >> Thanks! I can always count on you for a helpful response :) >> >> I don't know anything about the origins of John ASKIN[G] but Walraven >> LUTEN was from Flanders... >> >> "Walraven Luten from Flanders wife & infant [NWI]" >> >> As copied from http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/ships/nnship11.shtml >> >> If Hester (DELAHAILL) (LUTEN) MARTINEAU was the wife named in the >> record above, then she was from Flanders as well. So it seems most >> likely that Walraven & Hester were Flemish or Dutch. Walraven & >> Hester >> named a daughter Hester and she, in turn, apparently named children >> John [name of father], Mary [name of maternal aunt], Abraham [name of >> maternal uncle] and Elizabeth >> so it seems like this family was honoring loved ones in traditional >> ways. >> >> On the chance that Walraven & Hester were French, like Hester's >> second >> husband, the French reportedly followed this pattern: >> >> "Every first-born son was generally named after the paternal >> grandfather. The second-born son was named after the maternal >> grandfather. >> >> The first two daughters were generally named after their >> grandmothers, >> order would flip-flop depending on whether one was dead or not. Since >> maternal mortality was high, you'll often see the name of a deceased >> grandmother being used over and over again." >> >> As copied from >> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070516062324AAIEiUZ >> >> Perry > My goodness Perry. Who is Genevievesmom? :-) > > I see no source citations (documentation) in the above, and this is > certainly not something I would use in a scholarly article [i.e. > Genevievesmom said its true]. In fact, Elizabeth Shown Mills (leading > genealogy author, speaker and former editor of the NGS Quarterly) > would > argue decidedly against any naming patterns, and has (repeatedly): > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/apg/2005-12/1134362369 > > The key issue, according to Ms. Mills, is this (in response to James > Brady): > >> But "well-known" doesn't equate to *documentation* of a pattern. If >> all we can say is "well-known," then what that means is "Everybody >> says it, and it's panned out for me a few times, so it must be true." >> :). We still need actual *studies* to *prove* what's asserted. > > > > Of course, those of us close to the issue of Dutch naming conventions > would heartily disagree, and perhaps cite the following for support: > > Rosalie Fellows Bailey's "Dutch Systems in Family Naming: New York-New > Jersey" (National Genealogical Society Special Publications, No. 12 > 1954), and Kenn Stryker- Rodda "New Netherland Naming Systems and > Customs." The Record 126 (1995):35-45 (New York Genealogical and > Biographical Society). > > > But, the above articles do not address naming patterns from the > perspective of the French or Huguenots or the Flemish and I'm not > aware > of one that does. > > > Regards, > Pam Sears > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message