Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:32:26 -0600, Lars Eighner
><usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>In our last episode, <47b37953.37809997@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 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 im****tant 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 distingui****ng nomenclature. is
>totally unacceptable.

That is an assumption, not a conclusion.

lojbab