Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [S-R] Accuracy of names in records

Expand Messages
  • Ben Sorensen
    That would be strc~ prst skrz krk. :-) Ben ________________________________ From: Michael Mojher To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 103 , Aug 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      That would be "strc~ prst skrz krk." :-)
      Ben




      ________________________________
      From: Michael Mojher <mgmojher@...>
      To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 3:02:22 PM
      Subject: Re: [S-R] Accuracy of names in records

       
      Bill,
      On one of my trips to Slovakia I took my "god-brother" who has for the past 18
      years worked in Paris as a translator for the OECD. Since he has an "ear" for
      languages my Slovak relatives enjoyed spelling out Slovak words for him to try
      and pronounce. Zmrzlina was the first. They gave him the longest Slovak sentence
      without any consonants. Unfortunately, I do not know it. It had something to do
      about point your finger to your head or something. Do you know that one?

      From: William F Brna
      Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 11:45 AM
      To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [S-R] Accuracy of names in records

      Elaine,

      Reflecting on what you said about Americans having a hard time
      pronouncing my name because of the "brn", think how much trouble
      Americans would have pronouncing the Slovak word for ice cream (zmrzlina)
      with its five consonants or resurrection (zmrtvychstanie) with its ten
      consonants.

      Bill Brna

      On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:51:48 -0500 Elaine <epowell@...> writes:

      But Bill--don't Americans have a hard time pronouncing your last
      name? The "brn" is not one of the triple consonants common in
      English. The good news, though, is that at least we have quite a few
      we can do, in contrast to some languages I've studied...and at least,
      from what I understand so far, Slovak doesn't have any pops or clicks!

      Elaine

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Aug 28, 2010, at 3:36 PM, William F Brna <wfbrna@...> wrote:

      > I am thankful that my name has been spelled the same since at least
      > 1600. There are no complications arising from odd letters showing up
      > over the years.
      >
      > Bill Brna
      >
      > On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:26:39 EDT hmsbob@... writes:
      >
      > its bad enuf that all my head of hair is gray now i have to consider
      > pulling out each one one at a time. but with all the cz and cs and
      > dialectic and diacritic and anything else in all these old country
      > languages and
      > traditions sure are driving us all crazy but a fun type of crazy for
      > sure.
      >
      > In a message dated 8/28/2010 8:01:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
      > kozlay@... writes:
      >
      > "Seeing both SZ and CS in the same word (Szemanics) is a
      > little puzzling, but I'm no linguist."
      >
      > Presuming that this is a Hungarian spelling, it would be pronounced
      > SEM-an-ich. Both sz and cs are considered separate letters, pronounced
      > like
      > s and ch, respectively.
      >
      > Rather more confusing is the Hungarian cz, pronounced ts, because
      > this is
      > now an obsolete letter which has been replaced with the simple c,
      > still
      > pronounced ts. However, you still see it retained in names.
      >
      > Often people confuse the Hungarian sz with zs, which is yet another
      > separate
      > letter and is pronounced like the s in pleasure. I see this
      > frequently in
      > the spelling for the name Susanna which in Hungarian is correctly
      > spelled
      > Zsuzsanna, and pronounced zhuzhanna-not szuszanna, pronounced susanna.
      > Think
      > ZsaZsa Gabor, who uses a nickname for Zsuzsanna.
      >
      > Despite all this, the scribes (priests) did not always follow the
      > rules.
      > So
      > you may find a name spelled with Cs or Cz, even though that implies a
      > difference in pronunciation that probably did not exist. See, for
      > example,
      > Czabinye and Csebinye (now Cabiny SK).
      >
      > I hope I haven't further confused the issue.
      >
      > Janet
      >
      > From: _SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com_
      > (mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com)
      > [mailto:_SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com_
      > (mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com) ] On
      > Behalf Of Bill Tarkulich
      > Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 4:09 AM
      > To: _SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com

      > )
      > Subject: RE: [S-R] Accuracy of names in records
      >
      > Hi Debbie,
      >
      > I will add a little to what has already been said. My position is that
      > there is no one "correct" spelling for any surname. There is a
      > spelling
      > that
      > is appropriate for the time and place in which it is used. Our
      > region is
      > a
      > bit more knurly than most because it has undergone rule by many
      > different
      > empires, back and forth.
      >
      > Aside from the obvious errors introduced by scribes due to poor
      > penmanship
      > and misunderstanding:
      > - Governments mandated that churches be their record-keepers until
      > 1895.
      > - The government mandates the language to be used in the records
      > - Each language has it's own spelling rules and unique characters.
      > - Languages may be reformed or "modernized" at a period in time,
      > such as
      > how
      > Magyar was reformed by the Hungarians.
      > - Churches, when left to their own designs, have sometimes elected
      > to use
      > Latin and Church Slavonic in which to record events.
      > - Especially in the USA immigrants often purposely changed the
      > spelling
      > to
      > that of English so as to make their name pronounceable as it was
      > originally
      > spoken back home. This was very often done by illiterate folks, but
      > also
      > by
      > the literate.
      >
      > The correct strategy in record-keeping is to record the name EXACTLY
      > AS
      > RECORDED. Going back and "standardizing" on some presumptuously
      > "correct"
      > name is quite dangerous, as it makes your records nearly useless to
      > those
      > who want to pick up your research and go forward with it.
      >
      > With regard to not knowing what you are looking at, did you print
      > out a
      > copy
      > of John Jasso's headers? Once you understand the column headers, it is
      > fairly easy to decipher the writings - dates are dates, names are
      > names.
      > The occasional remarks in the columns are often the occupation and
      > religion,
      > which oft times are repeated again and again. John also provides a
      > brief
      > reference on most oft used words.
      > _http://www.bmi.net/~latin/_ (http://www.bmi.net/~latin/)
      >
      > Diacriticals - Ah, the angst - because of STOOPID COMPUTERS, it is not
      > easy
      > for those of us typing in English to render the correct characters
      > on our
      > keyboards and records. It can be done, I do it, but it gets garbled in
      > the
      > email, web and many times you want to share it with others. So we
      > often
      > leave it out.
      >
      > Does a diacritical matter? Absolutely. Take a simple example of my
      > surname. I spell it TARKULICH in the USA, but in Slovak, it is spelled
      > TARKULIC' , where C' is my feeble attempt to render a diacritical
      > above
      > the
      > C. The ending of my name is pronounced "ICH" in both language. You can
      > see
      > if I left off the "H" in English, you would not pronounce it
      > correctly if
      > I
      > had omitted the diacritical. And because most government documents
      > cannot
      > handle these characters well, well are left with, well, garbage. My
      > name
      > is
      > also variously rendered as TARKULICZ in Magyar and TARKULICS in Church
      > Slavonic.
      >
      > To understand your spelling of your name, Szemanics, we need to know
      > the
      > time and place. That will help you identify which language it was
      > being
      > rendered in. I'm going to make an assumption that it was during the
      > time
      > of
      > Hungarian rule. SZ is often the Magyar (Hungarian) rendering. "CZ" is
      > also
      > a Magyar language construct. Seeing both SZ and CS in the same word
      > is a
      > little puzzling, but I'm no linguist.
      >
      > I hope this helps.
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Bill
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: _SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com_
      > (mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com)
      > <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com>
      > [mailto:_SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com_
      > (mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com)
      > <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com>
      > ] On
      > Behalf Of deeellessbee
      > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 10:42 PM
      > To: _SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com

      > )
      > <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: [S-R] Accuracy of names in records
      >
      > I always read all the posts here because I am still learning about
      > researching overseas, and I can learn from everyone else's questions.
      > Something that Michael wrote in a recent thread caught my eye, and I
      > have
      > a
      > question.
      >
      > When Elaine was asking about the possibilities of dimunitive endings
      > on
      > surnames, Michael wrote that we should know the hometown of our
      > ancestors,
      > "Because it is in those records you will find the way the name
      > should be
      > spelled."
      >
      > I have been doing a lot of research on another of my lines, here in
      > the
      > states. The name is Kelley - which is documented as being spelled in
      > the
      > records 14 different ways! I have even seen records where the name is
      > spelled one way at the top of the document, and then signed another
      > way
      > (i.e. Kelly at the top, signature says Kelley). One branch of the
      > family
      > spelled it one way, another a second way, a third yet another (even
      > among
      > brothers). And as far as many records, it was not the person but
      > another
      > person (census taker, draft registrar, etc.) writing the info, so who
      > knows
      > how the name was really supposed to be spelled?
      >
      > So, my question is, in the records from overseas, how much can we
      > really
      > trust that the name we see is really "the real way" the name is
      > spelled?
      > English was a very fluid language, with things being spelled as they
      > were
      > heard; was Slovak or Hungarian the same way? I guess in some ways it
      > doesn't
      > matter, as long as you are sure you have found the right person, (at
      > least,
      > that's what I've found in my stateside research so far.) Does it make
      > that
      > much of a difference in these church records from overseas? And how do
      > the
      > diacritical marks play into this question?
      >
      > As an aside, I ordered some church records from Slovakia and have
      > taken a
      > quick look at them. I am, frankly, overwhelmed - I don't know Slovak,
      > Hungarian, or Latin, and can't tell what I'm looking at, really!
      > But, in
      > the records for the town my family came from, the closest name I can
      > find
      >
      > is
      > Szemanics, (I was told by family that the original spelling of the
      > name
      > was
      > Semanic). Could this be my family? Although I wonder why there is only
      > one
      > person by this name in all those years....
      >
      > Anyway, thoughts on the reliability of spellings of names in these
      > records?
      >
      > Thanks!
      > Debbie
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > _http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS/_
      > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS/)
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, go to
      > _http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS_
      > (http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS) -or- send blank
      > email to
      > _SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo_
      > (mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo)
      > <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.comYahoo> ! Groups
      > Links
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > __________________________________________________________
      > 1 Tip for Losing Weight
      > Cut down 2 lbs per week by using this 1 weird old tip
      > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c7973929ea51ed892m06vuc>
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      __________________________________________________________
      1 Tip for Losing Weight
      Cut down 2 lbs per week by using this 1 weird old tip
      http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c7aab085ec00efb5em06vuc

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Janet Kozlay
      Yes, I have checked out Turciansky Michal (Szent-Mihaly). That’s where a few of my entries came from. I also have checked the nobility lists for Turocz—not
      Message 103 of 103 , Sep 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, I have checked out Turciansky Michal (Szent-Mihaly). That’s where a few of my entries came from.



        I also have checked the nobility lists for Turocz—not there.



        The only nobility information I have found is the ennoblement of a Kozla family in 1633, published in Torna megye in 1643 (Kempelen). But of course there is no proof that this is the same family. Since there is no village location given for “Torna” it would be a lot of work to examine all of the villages, though I suppose it could be done. Even then, could they be identified as being related to anyone in Turocz at a later time? It is the same problem with relating those from Turocz with those from Nograd.



        The family was Lutheran, which is why I pretty much focused on Ivancina. However, last week I took a look at all of the records from churches in the county, of which there are 11 Lutheran and 23 Roman Catholic. The records for only two of the Lutheran churches extend prior to 1780 (death of Maria Teresia). These are Neczpal (to 1690) and Ivancina/Ivankafalu (to 1715). Neczpal was in the northern district (Turoczszentmarton) and only Ivankafalu was in the southern (Stubnyafurdo/Mosocz-Zniovaralja). However, of the 18 Roman Catholic churches whose records date back to the 1600s or early 1700s, eight of them are in the southern district: Felso-Stubnya (from 1737), Haj (from 1674), Kis-Szoczocz (from 1690), Mosocz (from 1733), Szent-Gyorgy (from 1672), Szent-Mihaly (from 1690), Szkleno (from 1737), Tot-Prona (from 1730) and Znio-Varalja (from 1653). This is at least a workable number, and I’ve already looked at Szent-Mihaly.



        Good reasons for examining Roman Catholic records are twofold: One, they may in fact have been Roman Catholic at an earlier time. Two, I have seen at least one case where although the films are purportedly Roman Catholic, 90% of the early entries were for German Lutherans.



        Although this thread may have shed little light on my initial questions, I thank you who have responded for encouraging me to give yet another look to this area, to organize what material I have, and to suggest another avenue of research.



        Janet







        From: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Margo Smith
        Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 7:58 PM
        To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [S-R] Variations of -ik





        The churches were required to keep the vital records until 1895. Parishes kept
        records a little differently from each other. Turciansky Michal records are
        hard to read. Checking them is worth the investment of $12. I'd do it. Let me
        know when you find them. If you think they might have been Lutheran (this area
        of the valley was religiously mixed), then you have more of a challenge.

        ________________________________
        From: Elaine <epowell@... <mailto:epowell%40earthlink.net> >
        To: "SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> " <SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> >
        Sent: Thu, September 9, 2010 9:29:11 PM
        Subject: Re: [S-R] Variations of -ik


        That's amazing, Margo!

        Is it possible that the early Turocz records would include some for my
        Holub family, prior to the start of the Kostolany records? I don't
        know the history of the churches, or the requirements regarding
        recordkeeping. If you think it would be worthwhile for me to look,
        I'll order the films you listed.

        Thanks!

        Elaine

        Sent from my iPhone

        On Sep 9, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Margo Smith <margolane61@... <mailto:margolane61%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

        > Yes, Elaine, Turocz records go back farther. The Roman Catholic
        > records for the
        > parish of Turciansky Michal (in which Kisfalu is located) go back to
        > 1690.
        > Reels 2062261 and 2062262. Kisfalu was a small village.
        >
        > Margo
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Elaine <epowell@... <mailto:epowell%40earthlink.net> >
        > To: "SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> " <SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> >
        > Sent: Mon, September 6, 2010 10:25:38 AM
        > Subject: Re: [S-R] Variations of -ik
        >
        >
        > Janet, thanks so much for posting your information, what an amazing
        > record of family history! And Margo, in addition to the research
        > pertinent to Janet's family, you caught my interest when you noted
        > that one member married in Kisfalu. That's the ancestral home of my
        > Holub family. I recently finished reviewing the 2 rolls of microfilm
        > for the RC records of Kisfalu and surrounding towns. However, the
        > earliest record was 1784. Was the information below in a note, or do
        > the Turocz records go back farther, like the ones Janet cited?
        > "Uhrik -- 1747 married in Kisfalu (by Turcianske Teplice)"
        >
        > Elaine
        >
        > Sent from my iPhone
        >
        > On Sep 6, 2010, at 7:53 AM, "Janet Kozlay" <kozlay@... <mailto:kozlay%40verizon.net> > wrote:
        >
        > > Margo,
        > >
        > > Thank you for attempting to address my question. Yes, I was “sugge
        > st
        > > ing” that “ege is an obsolete version of ik.”
        > >
        > > I have an unusual situation, as follows:
        > >
        > > Early 19th century manuscripts inherited by our family state that
        > > the family moved from Nagy Csepcseny in Turocz to the Hungarian
        > > Plain during the reign of Maria Teresia (died 1780). These were
        > > written by Jenő Kozlay, my husband’s great-grandfather, born abo
        > ut
        > > 1826 (cannot locate his baptismal record). He was well educated and
        > > articulate, and we know without any doubt that he was known by at le
        > > ast three names before he emigrated: János Kozik, János Kecskés,
        > > and Jenő Kozlay. His father, a butcher, was very wealthy. Both his
        > f
        > > ather and grandfather married into another butcher family (Massány
        > i)
        > > in Nograd megye. After the move south from Turócz, the family vario
        > > usly used the names Kozlay and Kozik (and Kecskés, but that’s not
        > > a problem) and have been found in the church records as such. Which
        > > name was used seemed to be associated at least sometimes with where
        > > they lived at the time (Nograd, Heves, Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok), but so
        > > metimes a single individual was found under both names in the same v
        > > illage.
        > >
        > > The situation is further complicated by the fact that the writer of
        > > the manuscripts stated that he descended from an “old noble
        > > family” and that the property that had been owned by his family in
        > N
        > > agy Csepcseny was “still” called Kozlayo Csaska (in 1844). At t
        > he
        > > same time, we know that after the move, at least, the family were bu
        > > tchers, which seems unlikely for a noble family.
        > >
        > > It was his grandfather, Samuel, who came south from Nagy Csepcseny.
        > > The records suggest that he was not married because he later married
        > > in Nograd. It is possible that Samuel did not come alone—with a br
        > ot
        > > her, perhaps?
        > >
        > > All of the records indicate that this was a very small family. Our
        > > ancestor from the early 19th century described himself as the only
        > > son of an only son. There are few entries in the Turócz church rec
        > or
        > > ds that could be associated with this family.
        > >
        > > Most of the Nagy Csepcseny records were in Ivancina; a few in Szent-
        > > Mihaly. The few entries that I have found that are possibly related
        > > are for the most part only witnesses rather than births or
        > > marriages. They can pretty much be divided into two groups: those
        > > that appear to be “Kozlay,” and these are almost always
        > > identified as noble, and those that appear to be Kozlik and which do
        > > not appear to be noble. (There are also many entries for Kozol in t
        > > hese records, which I have dismissed, as that family seems to be muc
        > > h too large.) Sometime back I asked Vladimir Bohinc if we could be c
        > > ertain that Kozlik and Kozik were the same. He said that Koz and Koz
        > > l referred to male and female goats, “but whether it mattered to t
        > he
        > > m, who knows?”
        > >
        > > They are as follows:
        > >
        > > From the 1715 Census for Turocz:
        > >
        > > Nicolaus Kozik, , Inquilinus, Neczpal
        > >
        > > Georgius Kozal, Colonus, Ivankafalu (Ivancina)
        > >
        > > From the Church Records:
        > >
        > > 1724 Death of noble Anna Draskovszky, wife of Johannis Kozler
        > >
        > > (This “er” suffix is extremely odd. Uncertain if related.)
        > >
        > > 1725 D.N. Kozlaj
        > >
        > > 1729 D. Joh. Kozlaj
        > >
        > > 1732 Joh. Kozlik
        > >
        > > 1736 Joh. Kozlik
        > >
        > > 1736 Catharina Kozlik (daughter of Johannis)
        > >
        > > 1741 Anna Kozljk, marries Georgius Murin
        > >
        > > 1742 Samu Kozik marries Catharina B? This might be Kovik.
        > >
        > > 1744 Kozlai
        > >
        > > 1745-9 Michael Kozljk
        > >
        > > 1747 Prov. Joh. Kozlik, died age 52
        > >
        > > 1752 Birth of Joannes Providi Michaelis Kozlik filius
        > >
        > > 1753 Joh. Kozljk (father of Maria, who marries Georg Schluch)
        > >
        > > (There are several entries for Barbara Schluch , noble. She married
        > > into noble Erdegh family.)
        > >
        > > 1756 Anna Kozlech, daughter of Joannes, died age 2
        > >
        > > 1768 Georgio Koslege or Kozlege (Found only in Szent-Mihaly/
        > > Turciansky Michal)
        > >
        > > 1772 Georgy Koslege or Kozlege
        > >
        > > 1792 Providus Joannes Kozik, died age 47, butcher from Lovinobana.
        > >
        > > This entry in the Ivancina records is the only one that spells the
        > > name without the “l.” Lovinobana is in Nograd. He died in the
        > > baths at Stubnyafurdo! I think we can presume, since he is listed in
        > > the Ivancina records, that he was visiting relatives when he died.
        > > If this is the Joannes born in 1752, his age is off by 7 years. Coul
        > > d he be a brother to Samuel?
        > >
        > > Obviously the paucity of the records from this period is a real
        > > problem. Since there is an almost complete lack of birth and
        > > marriage records for the family(ies), one might wonder if they could
        > > be with a different village. However, the few I have looked at don
        > ’t
        > > show anything.
        > >
        > > The fact that you found an instance of ege in Turciansky Michal, as
        > > have I, seems to me to support a theory that it may be a variant of
        > > ik but one that was specific to that village.
        > >
        > > There are several directions I could go:
        > >
        > > 1. Assume that there just isn’t anything more there; that records
        > in
        > > the 1700s were incomplete.
        > >
        > > 2. Look elsewhere in the area, though my previous attempts have not
        > > located anything.
        > >
        > > 3. Hire Vladimir Bohinc to look at other records, such as might be
        > > found in courts or real estate transactions. Probably would be very
        > > expensive.
        > >
        > > Not looking further means that I cannot verify that Jenő
        > > “descended from an old noble family” (Kozlay) or that his
        > > ancestors were Kozik/Kozliks. I would dearly love to find Samuel som
        > > ewhere in Turócz, but so far have been unsuccessful. The one Samu
        > Ko
        > > zik was married to a Catharina in 1742, but “our” Samuel Kozik/
        > > Kozlay married Zsuzsanna Massányi in Szirák, Nograd megye. The fam
        > il
        > > y seems to have settled at one point in Lovinobana, perhaps where th
        > > ey first settled, not far from Szirák. Unfortunately records for t
        > he
        > > late 1700s and early 1800s are gone—no one knows why. They might
        > ha
        > > ve answered some of these questions.
        > >
        > > All well, Margo, I don’t really expect you to solve my problems, b
        > ut
        > > it at least gave me the opportunity to put together in one spot all
        > > of the pieces I have.
        > >
        > > So if you’ve made it through this far, I thank you.
        > >
        > > Janet
        > >
        > > From: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:SLOVAK-
        > > ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Margo Smith
        > > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 12:37 PM
        > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com>
        > > Subject: Re: [S-R] Variations of -ik
        > >
        > > Ahoj Janet
        > >
        > > Here is what I have from Turiec, with my earliest reference: (my
        > > email doesn't
        > > accept diacritics)
        > >
        > > Bizik -- Zaturcie in 1784
        > > Kovascik -- mid 1700s, married a fellow from Zaturcie; also 1780s
        > > Ondrasova
        > > [different families]
        > > Janosik -- 1750 married in Ondrasova
        > > Uhrik -- 1747 married in Kisfalu (by Turcianske Teplice)
        > > Ludik -- born 1774 in Turciansky Michal
        > > Yanik -- giving birth in 1705 in Polerieka
        > >
        > > Kovaseje (sometimes ege) -- 1728 married in Turciansky Michal (I
        > > don't know if
        > > she had any brothers or if her father had any brothers)
        > >
        > > Are you suggesting that ege is an obsolete version of ik and that
        > > ege evolved
        > > into ik in the same family? If so, I have no evidence of that.
        > >
        > > Margo
        > >
        > > ________________________________
        > > From: Janet Kozlay <kozlay@... <mailto:kozlay%40verizon.net> <mailto:kozlay
        > %40verizon.net> >
        > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS
        > > %40yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 2:58:13 PM
        > > Subject: [S-R] Variations of -ik
        > >
        > > Has anyone encountered variations of the –ik name suffix in old (1
        > 7t
        > > h & 18th
        > > centuries) records. I would be especially interested in suffixes
        > > similar to
        > > –egh or –ege. I have found such spellings in Turóocz/Turiec and
        > > suspect they
        > > are obsolete spelling variations but would love to see some
        > > confirmation.
        > >
        > > Janet
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.