[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
paf-digest V2000 #5
paf-digest Friday, January 21 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 005
In this issue:
[PAF] Re: Odds?
Re: [PAF] Odds? Show of hands?
Re: [PAF] Odds? Show of hands?
[PAF] "Depth of Name Tree"
Re: [PAF] "Depth of Name Tree"
[PAF] Size of PAF 4.0.2. program
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the PAF
or PAF-Digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:16:20 -0800
From: Pat Konold <patk2@home.com>
Subject: [PAF] Re: Odds?
1. First I would check the 1880 Soundex on the slight chance he was born
before or by 1880.
2. Next: 1910 and 1920 Censuses (Censi?) of Oregon if there is an index;
if no index, at least the county (as it was then) where he lived in
1950s AND the county where spouse's family was in 1911.
3. Then: Each of the counties in 1910 and/or 1920 in which you found his
name in 1900, starting with 1884 & 1893 OH (spouse's family from there);
IA, NY, then TX (the order of places an Oregonian would be most likely
to come from??).
That's the way I would tackle it.
Pat
P.S. What is a 1900 Soundex Sweep? Where is it available? It sounds
great.
Cheryl Singhal wrote:
> Scene: man with common surname and UNCOMMON given name married in 1909;
> spouse' family from MD to OH to IL to Oregon by 1911; he was in Oregon
> when he died in the 1950s. I happen to have access to a 1900 Soundex
> Sweep for his surname; out of approximately 6380 persons of the surname,
> I find 7 with the given name...none in Oregon. (g)
>
> I believe it's safe to omit from consideration the one born in 1899 (MO)
> and the one born in 1837 (PA). Leaving 5 candidates:
>
> b 1874; living in IA in 1900
> b 1855; living in NY in 1900
> b 1884; living in OH in 1900
> b 1893; living in OH in 1900
> b 1887; living in TX in 1900
>
> Anyone care to venture a helping hand?
>
> Cheryl
> ============================================================================
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:30:01 -0800
From: "John Carruthers" <Bracky@telus.net>
Subject: Re: [PAF] Odds? Show of hands?
Cheryl,
I don't have any experience with the US census but in Canada I have
noticed that from 1841 to 1881 the cenus taker spelled CARRUTHERS
differently every time, including CORODERS. Many people were illiterate and
couldn't spell there own name. The census taker used his own version of
Soundex and spelled the names they way they sounded to him. Until I caught
on to this I had great difficulty finding my ancestors.
The only way that I know to be reasonably sure that you have the right
person is to find, by some other means, his age, his wife's name, his wife's
age, his children's names, and their ages. Then you compare that data to the
census. You have to still be careful. Some people lied about their age. Some
people had forgotten the ages of their children. Especially in big families.
Also some people gave the name they commonly used, like Maggie, instead of
Ann Margaret. If the census data differs from what I think is the right age
or name I mention that in the Notes for the person.
With regard to the Family Feud. Many of my family have chosen to spell
their name differently from others. This has to be respected, I think. All
my Irish branch spell the name CARROTHERS instead of CARRUTHERS. That is
the way they show up in my database.
Yours aye,
John Carruthers
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1972 14:25:48 -0500 (EST)
> From: Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CapAccess.org>
> Subject: [PAF] Odds? Show of hands?
>
> What do you do when you have two branches of the same family feuding over
> whether the vowel is an e or an a, while two other branches feud over ch
> vs gh ?? (g)
>
> I have to fall one way or the other here to put it in print. So, would
> you might taking a look at these sanitized facts and say who'd be your
> first choice for further investigation?
>
> Scene: man with common surname and UNCOMMON given name married in 1909;
> spouse' family from MD to OH to IL to Oregon by 1911; he was in Oregon
> when he died in the 1950s. I happen to have access to a 1900 Soundex
> Sweep for his surname; out of approximately 6380 persons of the surname,
> I find 7 with the given name...none in Oregon. (g)
>
> I believe it's safe to omit from consideration the one born in 1899 (MO)
> and the one born in 1837 (PA). Leaving 5 candidates:
>
> b 1874; living in IA in 1900
> b 1855; living in NY in 1900
> b 1884; living in OH in 1900
> b 1893; living in OH in 1900
> b 1887; living in TX in 1900
>
> Anyone care to venture a helping hand?
>
> Cheryl
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:52:52 EST
From: DJ181618@aol.com
Subject: Re: [PAF] Odds? Show of hands?
Sure Why not. I vote for the one living in Ohio in 1900 that was born in
1884. That would make him 25 when he married in 1909. ( A logical marriage
age). Nearly everyone moving west spent some time in Ohio. Look for
marriage records in Ohio. That still would give them two years to get to
Oregon by 1911.
DR
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1972 22:41:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CapAccess.org>
Subject: [PAF] "Depth of Name Tree"
I _know_ Barbara Bennett told me not to worry about it, but ...
Sometimes when I run <f1> file check from PAF 2.x, that Depth of Name
Tree is 31 and sometimes it's 30.
I'm willing to not worry about it so long as it keeps going up, but this
fluctuation is keeping me up nights. (g) Is it normal? Is it
acceptable? Or do I *really* have a disaster lurking in the wings here?
Cheryl
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:11:39 -0800
From: Jack Chandler <jackchandler@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [PAF] "Depth of Name Tree"
At 10:41 PM 1/19/72 -0500, you wrote:
>I _know_ Barbara Bennett told me not to worry about it, but ...
>
>Sometimes when I run <f1> file check from PAF 2.x, that Depth of Name
>Tree is 31 and sometimes it's 30.
>
>I'm willing to not worry about it so long as it keeps going up, but this
>fluctuation is keeping me up nights. (g) Is it normal? Is it
>acceptable? Or do I *really* have a disaster lurking in the wings here?
Cheryl,
Believe in Barbara Bennet. This is NOT a problem for you to worry about.
I know you have been with PAF a long time but you must be like so many
others and do
not upgrade every time a new version comes out. If I am not mistaken, the
depth of the
name tree has NOT been reported in the FRCHECK since version 2.2.
The depth of the name tree simply indicates the longest search that PAF
needs to
make when searching for a name. Each time you ADD or DELETE a name from
the NAME2.DAT file, the order of the names are re-organized to fit the new
name in
its proper branch in the name tree. Depending upon exactly where it has to
be placed,
it can change the depth of the name tree. Adding a new name does not always
increase the size of the name tree unless it is placed in the existing
LONGEST branch.
In fact, at times it can actually reduce the depth of the name tree.
Keep the faith and don't worry about it.
Jack <jackchandler@worldnet.att.net>
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:51:46 EST
From: MKPenn@aol.com
Subject: [PAF] Size of PAF 4.0.2. program
How many names will the PAF 4.0.2. program hold?
Kay
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
End of paf-digest V2000 #5
**************************
To unsubscribe to PAF-Digest, send the following command to
majordomo@innernet.org:
unsubscribe paf-digest
At this point there is no direct method to receive back issues other than
to email ed.rogers@innernet.org. Happy PAF'ing!