Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:39:24 +0000, Ian Goddard
<goddai01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> 
>> I wanted to avoid your question. I don't know who appoints them. I
>> suspect you could be one in the UK if you are a recognized authority
>> on the subject.
>
>It's a long time since I appointed anyone to anything and I certainly 
>wouldn't want to appoint anyone to define the bounds of genealogy or any 
>other area of study.  It's simply not useful to do so as any such bounds 
>are likely to be outgrown.  For instance a definition of genealogy from 
>not very long ago would have excluded DNA.
>-- 
>Ian

I am satisfied with a competent group setting standards for quality
and accurate genealogy. I doubt that I follow (or even know) all the
standards. A competent group will always be on top of change.

I don't know that DNA would have been excluded. It's just another
source, or tool, to be used. I doubt that any standard would even
attempt to list all the tools that can be used. 

A male and a female procreate. The offspring and their descendants are
the basis of what many people call genealogy. If the momma isn't sure
who the daddy was it doesn't change the genealogy - ir might change
the names of record.

I think genealogy that does not include events is too skimpy to
consider. Those events are the family history of the genealogy.

I don't want to get bound up in semantics - I use the easiest and most
refognizeable terms to mose people. They may lose something in
translation if you are not an American from the USA.

Hugh