"KLISAVAGE : On the 1900 census in Perth Amboy, NJ we have the spelling: KLISZAVITZ on a marriage document we have the spelling: KLISSAVAGE on the 1920 census we have: KLISAWICH and KLISEVAGE. I believe the correct spelling would be Klis^evic^ius (s^=sh, c^=tch). Since my family is of Lithuanian descent, you can see at this period of time it has the polish vitz/witz endings. Karen in the Augusta, GA area" - - - - - - - - - - Hello Karen ... Well, all things said and done, the only way you are going to find the "correct" spelling as finally agreed upon (for the most part) is to analize the surname of known descendents either through Church records and/or notorial records for the area in which your ancestors lived. Even then, you are going to find misspellings, so the odd's are in favor of the number of times you see the surname spelled the same. Unfortunately, circular logic follows. In the Slavic languages, just one letter or a diacritical mark or the absence of a diacritical mark means everything. To top it off, during the surname formation period in Lithuania, (For that matter all of the Slavic countries and those countries bordering the Slavic nations as well) close to 99% of ALL Family members could NOT read or write. In fact, the figure is probably closer to 99.9%. The accuracy and correct spelling of such surnames is 100% reliant on the ability of the speaker to pronounce the surname correctly combined with the ability of the scribe to hear the surname correctly and record it as such. Realistically, the scribe could write "Smith" (literally) and IF (a big IF since most recorded transactions were never seen by the Family) the scribe would show the Family sacramental or legal entry for "Smith" - they'd take the scribes word for it's accuracy and attest to to the fact that this was indeed, the recorded surname KLISAVAGE, simply because the "learned a! nd respected scribe" (usually a priest or respected government official) says so. That's just the way it was. BIG NOTE: Every scribe did not hear the surname, nor did every Family member pronounce the surname, in the correct manner. Ergo: you will see many entries where this surname (for that matter any surname) is spelled differently. Human nature based on education, correct pronunciation of the surname and accurately recording such are all culprits. Through time, the educational process, and mass communication all work together to keep this confusion to a minimum. This subject is additionally compounded several times over, in that during the surname formation period, it was slowly evolving into what you now know as KLISAVAGE. 20 years prior to the inception of KLISAVAGE, it may have been officially spelled KISAVAGE and still have been perfectly correct. And to "tighten the noose", various regions within Lithuania and adjoining countries had certain irregularities in speech which carried over to the written word. What was KLISAVAGE in Southern Lithuania may well have been KISAVAGE is Northern Lithuania. A good example of the latter would be the comparison here within the US between an Alabama Native and a Native of New York City. I absolutely guarantee that if the New Yorker would attempt to record a set amount of Slavic surnames as spoken by a "Deep South Native", the end result would absolutely astound you. So, you can see that honestly and truely, one cannot say with absolute certainity that KLISAVAGE was the correct spelling of the surname. By comparison, even today, some members (blood relatives) of Families, for various reasons, change the spelling of a surname unilaterally. Swirczek and Swerczek comes to mind. You may eventually prove, through record archives that the surname was spelled, by example, say in 1785 as KLISAVAGE. Well and fine, but even then, "it wasn't spelled correctly" if you compare it to entries found in, say, 1645, where it may have been KISAVAGE. Do you see my point ?? Overall, correct surname spelling is relative - a fleeting experience, part of the evolutionary process towards one standard way of spelling the surname (which will probably never happen). At any rate, back to your questions - To opine, I would think that KLISAVAGE is the correct spelling based on what you sent. I get the distinct impression that the other variants you have listed there are phonetic equivalents ... written by a scribe based on his/her hearing the surname pronounced. An interesting point would be to look at the surname of the census' enumerators as well as the person performing the marriage. If it's a Mr. Langan or Minister Smith or Father McDonald .... the probability factor of a misspelling in the surname just went up a bunch of percentage points. The double "S", or "SS" in the surname variant you have listed (German essex) plus the suffix's VITCH and WICH all lead to a Germanic, probably a Prussian influence. These suffix's are not Polish - The WITZ suffix is Germanic and I think that's where the WICH and the VITCH came from during the immigration experience. There's no doubt that the surname KLISAVAGE is Lithuanian. The AVAGE is a dead giveaway, however, most likely the surname is a combination of Polish and Lithuanian. Owing to marriages of the Nobility in both countries (Queen Jadwiga of Poland and the Lithuanian Prince Jagiello in 1385 - the Jagiellonian Dynasty), Lithuania became a virtual "blood brother" to Poland during most of history, actually joining forces and forming one kingdom, the Old Polish Commonwealth (Belarus and the Ukraine were also included). Then there was the intervention of the Soviets when Lithuania was under occupation and the cyrillic equivalent, then back again into the Roman alphabet. Say nothing of the influence of the Russians, those from the Ukraine and the Belarusian's. Polish was the offical and court language of choice for decades in Lithuania, replacing the old White Russian (the precursor of the modern Belarusian). Owing to the 3 partitions of Poland where the country ceased to exist for arou! nd 100 years, the Polish and the Lithuanian languages were both supressed in favor of German, all under Prussian occupation. Polish, Lithuanian, and the surnames in other countries involved all tended to assume a Germanic, a Russian, or an Austrian "flare". For the most part, it was a matter of phonetic pronunciation that caused all the surname problems during this era. The diacritical marks especially since there was no equivalent in German, so they simply recorded what they heard, in the German way, adding their own diacritical marks according to the grammer of their language. I believe that KLISAVAGE is the correct spelling and this surname is disected in the Onomastic was as follows: KLIS-Formed from a name, from the Polish root name element "Kle-", from "Klemens, Kleofas, etc. + the root suffix "S". (Note: The German [Prussian] would be "Klis~" (with a tic above the letter -s-). The surname suffix "AVAGE" in the surname KLISAVAGE is Lithuanian and compares to the Polish suffix WICZ which means "Son Of". So, in totality, the respected surname KLISAVAGE means "Son of Klemens [or Kleofas, or a similiar name starting with "KLE"]. Polish (Note: It's almost impossible to put into written word the distinct sounds) K - More or less like in the English language word KING L - Lighter than in English, more as in the English word MILLION I - As in the English word MACHINE S - More or less like in the English word SAM A - As in the English word FATHER V - A letter NOT in the Polish language A - As in the English word FATHER G - Always pronounced as in the English word GIVE (never GEOMETRY) E - as in the English word LED Phonetically: K-LL-E-S-A-?-A-G-E ..... CLE(long 'E')SA (rimes with LISA) ? AGE (sounds like the first part of the English word AGAIN (short 'A').... AGAI). The Letter "V" in the surname KLISAVAGE is probably Lithuanian and I don't know how to pronounce that letter. Once you find this out, add it's phonetic value into this breakdown and you should have a basic pronounciation of the surname. Hint: Bearing all this in mind, find someone who speaks the Lithuanian dialect fluently and ask them to pronounce the surname. RECORD IT. Do the same with a person locally there who speaks Polish fluently and ask them to pronounce the surname. RECORD IT. Now compare ..... they are both going to be almost 100% similiar, however, there will be little differences in pronunciation that are virtually imperceptable. I would follow the recording made by the Lithuanian person. Mimic the word. You have to mimic because our Western speach mandates formation of vocal muscles in a manner that virtuall! y prohibits an easy and proper pronunciation of most words in the Slavic languages. Reference: Polish Surnames, Origins and Meanings 2nd edition revised William F. Hoffman (He's a Polish linguist and his wife is Lithuanian) Sorry for taking up all the email space - but a good question deserves a good answer. Tom Lassek Eufaula Alabama