On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:32:26 -0600, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote: >In our last episode, <47b37953.37809997@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, the >lovely and talented J. Hugh Sullivan broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing: > >> I am not the judge of proper and improper. Historically, Genealogy is >> limited to "genes", hence the name. > >Of course not. Genealogy *historically* antedated any knowledge of genes by >about six centuries. Let's not get our shorts bunched up over semantics - let's cut to the chase (sorta). What terms would you use to distinguish bloodlines from wannabes - perhaps Assumed (to allow for the 30%) Biological Descendatns and Fairy Tales (no pun intended)? A person descends from the union of a man and woman. That is his line of descent or pedigree and is construed by most authorities (at least in the US) to be his genealogy. Should that person change families by any means, legal or illegal, it becomes "family history" if the apparent pedigree is changed. To distinguish between the two, what do you call the original status if not genealogy? Calling both Family History without distinguishing nomenclature. is totally unacceptable. Hugh

Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:32:26 -0600, Lars Eighner ><usenet@larseighner.com> wrote: > >>In our last episode, <47b37953.37809997@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, the >>lovely and talented J. Hugh Sullivan broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing: >> >>> I am not the judge of proper and improper. Historically, Genealogy is >>> limited to "genes", hence the name. >> >>Of course not. Genealogy *historically* antedated any knowledge of genes by >>about six centuries. > >Let's not get our shorts bunched up over semantics - let's cut to the >chase (sorta). > >What terms would you use to distinguish bloodlines from wannabes - How about "bloodlines"? Of course part of the issue is why one should care to distinguish same >A person descends from the union of a man and woman. Usually, though that likely soon will not always be the case. Then your idealized paradigm is destroyed no matter how much you prefer otherwise. >That is his line of descent or pedigree and is construed by most authorities (at least >in the US) to be his genealogy. What kind of authorities? To the legal authorities, my adopted kids are mine. They even have a birth certificate issue by our government, and another one issued by the Soviet government saying they were born to my wife in Russia, even though they were born before our marriage, and my wife has never been in Russia. The fiction is legal reality, and 300 years from now, no one will know it is baloney unless they find my genealogical noted. Augustus Caesar was adopted by his great uncle Julius in to the gens (note the term) Julia. His dynasty was called the Julian dynasty. Though adopted, he was legally a member of that gens. A genealogy that doesn't recognize that, in favor of "bloodlines" runs counter to the etymology of the word "genealogy". >Should that person change families by >any means, legal or illegal, it becomes "family history" if the >apparent pedigree is changed. To distinguish between the two, what do >you call the original status if not genealogy? You presume that there is a reason to distinguish between the two that is important enough to have distinct terminology. Just like there is no unique term to distinguish each of your 32 great-great grandparents, why does there need to be one for this peculiar distinction? It is a specialty field within "family history" aka "genealogy" to research provable bloodlines. That specialty field is called "genealogy" by a minority of "genealogists" who want to look down their noses at everyone else who misusing a word that they appropriated from those who originally used it for the broader sense (any 14th century use of the word genealogy, would almost certainly have been referencing the legal ancestry of inheritance rather than solely the bloodlines). >Calling both Family History without distinguishing nomenclature. is >totally unacceptable. That is an assumption, not a conclusion. lojbab

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > Calling both Family History without distinguishing nomenclature. is > totally unacceptable. I'll study what interests me and you can call it anything you want. And that will be totally acceptable to me. -- Wes Groleau There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:45:06 GMT, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> Calling both Family History without distinguishing nomenclature. is >> totally unacceptable. > >I'll study what interests me and you can call it anything you want. > >And that will be totally acceptable to me. > >-- >Wes Groleau It's also totally acceptable to me. But if I find a Groleau in my line I'll ask about your recording standards. Hugh

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > It's also totally acceptable to me. But if I find a Groleau in my line > I'll ask about your recording standards. Every page of my WorldConnect DB starts with > WARNING: Database does contain errors. and ends with > Accuracy NOT guaranteed; but [please send corrections] > This data may speed up your search; it can NOT replace it. and GEDCOM snippets downloaded from there (no longer allowed) contained a header (1) chastising anyone who fails to check sources and (2) forbidding commercial use. None of that stopped several people from merging or copying it without the disclaimers, nor stopped Kindred Konnections from selling the entire file. -- Wes Groleau Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it to? -- Clarence Darrow