RE: [S-R] Place Names - Modern versus old
- My gut tells me the best source will still be searching for ancestral
village and not surname. Too many unrelated, unsubstantiated, un-researched
branches. Not many people research their family, thus I don't expect huge
investments in this area.
From: Dr. Joe Q. [mailto:DoctorQ@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [S-R] Place Names - Modern versus old
My relatives and probably those of most of everyone else on this list
did not move much in the old country. At the moment, there are three
(3) towns for sure that mine came from and possibly a fourth for my
2xgreat grandfather. It isn't much of a chore to list all of the
various names of the towns and I have done that, but the names are more
of a curiosity for future generations. However, I am certain that in 40
years all that is necessary for someone to is enter their best guess of
the family name and general geographic location into what ever replaces
this rudimentary information system - internet - and fuzzy logic will
provide the best answer along with several other potential answers. I
think the resources will be there.
I do include the spellings of the names as they appear in the records
and include the modern day equivalent Jan = John, Alzbeta = Elizabeth, etc.
Bill Tarkulich wrote:
>Hello "Q",To unsubscribe from this group, go to
>The problem with "resources" is that they may not be in your control.
>External resources may or may not be accessible in a form you might expect
>20 years from now. In five years, I have seen several references come and
>go. That's one reason I make a private copy of any web resource I find
>I think it's simpler to put the three to six most common names into a
>cross-reference document and include it with your family trees.
>On Tue, August 8, 2006 12:03 am, Dr. Joe Q. said:
>>It is important to have the continuity of the various names over the
>>ages, however, one can become compulsive in the process. I think that
>>for the future generations, that the various Hungarian, German,
>>Czechoslovak, and Slovak names will be easy to identify and correlate.
>>Spisska Nova Ves was Iglo. Enter "Iglo Slovakia" into google and you
>>will get hits with Spisska Nova Ves and Iglo. I do not think that any
>>grand children will be at a disadvantage if you do not include all of
>>names of a town from 1835 to 1920/1990. Of course there is no harm in
>>doing so, but I feel that in most cases it is no longer necessary. You
>>can provide the 25+ names of a town from 1200 - 1990, but from a
>>practical standpoint, there are plenty of online resources now. What do
>>you anticipate those resources to be in 20 - 40 years?
>>Just my thoughts.
>>Gordon L. Grening wrote:
>>>Good point taken. I wonder what members of the DAR use. Would they put
>>>Boston, Mass. Colony, England!!
>>>Anyone out there know any New England genealogist. I wonder if the DAR
>>>a web site.
>>>Have a feeling my great-great grandfather would roll over in his grave if
>>>said he was born in Hungary and not Slovakia. He was a Rusyn and from
>>>I understand they really hated the Hungarians. But then I don't think
>>>were too nuts about the Slovaks either.
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:12 AM
>>>Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: [S-R] Place Names - Modern versus old
>>>I have always used the place names that were in effect at the time that
>>>event took place.
>>>I do not bother to explain the differences or the name changes in each
>>>individual's record. These place name changes are part of history. If
>>>are going to do genealogy you need to know history. I maintain a
>>>"Place Names" file in which I show the name changes for each location of
>>>interest to include; villages, counties and countries. All that anyone
>>>needs to do first is read my "Place Names" file and then look at the
>>>Tree Maker file, or even look at them side by side. It will help them to
>>>learn a little more about history.
>>>From: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com]
>>>Behalf Of Gordon Grening
>>>Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:34 AM
>>>Subject: [S-R] Place Names - Modern versus old
>>>I like to poll the group members on how they are entering place names
>>>in their family tree software. As we all know Slovakia didn't
>>>actually exist until 1993, before that it was part of Czechoslovakia
>>>and before 1918 part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. So what do we
>>>put in the family tree, Slovakia, Czech., Austria-Hungary??
>>>The same applies to counties. My great grandparents are from ©ari¹,
>>>which doesn't exist now. The area is now part of the Pre¹ov region.
>>>Also the area was known as Sáros in Hungarian and Scharosch in
>>>German. So what name do I use.
>>>Right now I am using a combination of the old and new. I list my
>>>great-grandparents as being born in ©ari¹, Slovakia. But would
>>>Sáro,Austria-Hungary be more correct? On some of the U.S. Census they
>>>are listed as being born in Hungaria and on others Slovak. Do we have
>>>any professional genealogist out there that could weight in on this?
>>>I even have a worst problem with my father's side of the family who
>>>came from East Prussia. Not only did East Prussia become part of
>>>Poland but all of the old German place names where changed to Polish
>>>names. What do I use, the old Prussian name or the current Polish
>>>With the proliferation of genealogy database out there, this has
>>>become a critical problem. I have several cousins who have created
>>>family trees on various database using different birth place names
>>>for the same people. I'm trying to get them to all agree on a common
>>>naming practice but with little success. We can't even agree on the
>>>spelling of my grandfather's name: Frederick, Friedrick, Fredrich,
>>>Friedrich, etc. I use Friedrich because that is how it is spelt in
>>>the Family Bible and my contacts in Germany say that is the
>>>traditional spelling. The others being modern English corruptions of
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS -or- send blank email to
Yahoo! Groups Links