Re: [Gramps-users] Nordic view on Patronyms

[Hans B. <ha...@bo...>]

That's a good summary of the situation. For me, name format "Given
Patronymic Primary" displays the names acceptably. But then the People view
sorts on given name. Any name format with the primary surname first always
ends up with other issues.

As we discussed before, in addition to other things we've talked about, I
still really want to see an option on the People view to sort names based
first on primary surname (without prefixes) and secondly on patronymic.
That way, we can be much more flexible in how names are displayed.

Cheers! Hans

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Enno Borgsteede <enn...@gm...> wrote:

> Hi Hans,
>
>  Yes, you can identify which part of a name is a patronymic. However,
>> there is a lot of potential for improvement. For example, in the formatting
>> and sorting of names. That is, I want to see names presented as: (given
>> names) (patronymic) (family name). And if a family name is not given, the
>> patronymic should be treated as a family name. I've fiddled with the Gramps
>> settings, and I can't seem to configure it quite the way I want.
>>
> I remember the previous discussion, and I think that I have an idea where
> things go wrong. It's still sort of an idea, no proof, but it looks like it
> can explain what happens.
>
>  Here are some examples of Dutch names:
>>
>> 'Dirk van de Bunt' - family name is "van de Bunt", no patronymic
>> 'Dirk Mellisen' - no family name, patronymic is "Mellisen", which should
>> be treated as a family name
>> Dirk Mellisen van de Bunt' - family name and patronymic
>>
>> One solution is to just not bother using the patronymic attribute in
>> Gramps. However, the problem in research is that in the old records (even
>> sometimes in post-1811 civil records), a person might be referred using
>> patronymic, family name, or both. So it's very useful to be able to
>> identify the patronymics.
>>
> In my database, most of the names were imported from programs that don't
> support patronymics, and in all cases I find the patronymic name behind the
> given name, unless there is no family name at all, in which case the
> patronymic name is treated as a surname indeed.
>
> After import, I find surnames like "van de Bunt" in my database, which can
> then be sorted as Bunt when I let Gramps move "van de" to the prefix field.
> So far, everything looks OK.
>
> Trouble starts, when I try to convert Melissen to a patronymic in Gramps.
> When I do that, Melissen suddenly moves to the SURNAME part of the screen,
> and that's not what I want, because it also means that the name will be
> sorted as Melissen, even when I designate "van de Bunt" as the primary
> name. I want the patronymic to be (optionally) shown between the given and
> the family name, but in most cases it should not be treated as a part of
> that, unless there is no real family name for a person. And IMO adding an
> extra name to sort on just to get things right is one step too far.
>
> When I look at the surname types in Gramps, they seem to be treated as
> exactly that, SURNAME types. And when I think about surname types, they are
> sort of a scientific explanation of the origin of that name. In todays
> world, Johnson is a surname with a patronymic origin, but it doesn't mean
> that a persons father is named John. Likewise, Borgsteede originally refers
> to a farm, or a village, and can thus be designated as of type location,
> but it doesn't mean that my personal origin is in that place.
>
> When I see a patronymic name, I like to treat it like an intermediate
> level, between the given and the family name, just like it is still used in
> Arab countries today.
>
> regards,
>
> Enno
>
>
>
>