Of course the "ff" was the capital F no one is disputing that, but what is the transcriber's job? Is it to interpret the record and provide a modern translation or is it to record what was written, leaving the interpretation to others? Can you be sure that the transcript is going to be legible in the future to distinguish the start letters etc.? Not so important if using a keyboard but imperative with hand written transcripts in pencil. Where do the changes end, do we change the long s and the various abbreviation marks or should a transcript be a faithful rendition of the original? If the transcriber decides that it acceptable to interpret the record what happens with abbreviations such as the notorious Jno. Yes we all know that the common and accepted English usage was for John, (from the latin & greek) but unfortunately our ancestors didn't always. No matter how many disagree, our ancestors, especially American ancestors sometimes used Jno as an abbreviation for Jonathan. In the end it comes down to personal preferences, I think faithfully copying is best practice, but do admit not to always following it myself. Cheers Guy Polly Rubery wrote: > Hi Guy > > >>>You are transcribing it correctly put both "f"s in. > > It is not the transcribers place to adapt the text to modern usage.<< > > While I would wholeheartedly agree with you, in this case the "old" usage is > a captial "F" which looks like a "ff" to us. So transcribing it as "ff" is > adapting it to modern usage! You only have to look at old alphabets > produced at the time to see that this is so. If you wish I'll send you a > scan. > Cheers > Polly > > -- Wakefield, England http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts not promises! Help yourself, help archives, help others, with Archive CD Books http://www.archivecdbooks.org http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~framland/CHURCH/church.htm Churches & MIs. in the Wakefield Area

>Of course the "ff" was the capital F no one is disputing that, but what >is the transcriber's job? > >Is it to interpret the record and provide a modern translation or is it >to record what was written, what was written was a capital F. So that is what should be transcribed > we change the long s we should write is as s, which is not 'changing' but doing the job correctly >now that the common and accepted English usage was for John, >(from the latin & greek) but unfortunately our ancestors didn't always. Yes they did. It is modern folk who get it wrong -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

So when we see ffabolla written in a parish register that should be transcribed as Fabolla. There is no possible chance of faded ink or decaying vellum or paper disguised the fact that the intial letter had perished and that the ff was really preceded by an I revealing the name to be Iffabolla or as we would now say Isabella. It must be joy to only transcribe pristine records. ;-)) Cheers Guy -- Wakefield, England http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts not promises! Archive CD Books have helped my research http://www.archivecdbooks.org http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~framland/CHURCH/church.htm Churches & MIs. in the Wakefield Area

In message <403FD100.2010500@virgin.net>, Guy Etchells <guy.etchells@virgin.net> writes >So when we see ffabolla written in a parish register that should be >transcribed as Fabolla. no - we don't mix a long s up with an f, in the first place. or an e with an o -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society