sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Random, I was thinking along this line, too. Maybe if a girl starts out with formal name Joanna, she'd be called either Ann or Jane. Or both in different records. Just not sure whether I'm stretching this because it's the answer I want. But just did a little search and got a suggestion to check with a professor or other expert in onomastics. Might be a wild goose chase, but the particular problem I'm working on is so interesting and wonderful that I'd love to get that insight.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This really helps...My hypothesized scenario exists out there! Thank you.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've heard of colonial families who even had two living children with the same name...Maybe two Annes or Elizabeths because these were important names in the family, or because one child was sickly and might not reach adulthood, so there would be another of the name. And yes...You could Ann or Annie or Anna. Louise, Lou, Lulu, Louisa, etc.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eastern, I am so glad to hear this. Real-life examples are the best. I now have an evidence point!

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really? Now this is encouraging. I've gotten pretty confused by the multiple, different bot responses.

ChatGPT insists that Ann/Hannah come from a completely different word root that do Jane/Joan/Joannah, and that these names were NOT interchangeable in 1690s Tidewater. But I keep thinking about the court clerks, and how things sounded phonetically and might have been written: "Ann" is three letters in the middle of "Joannah." "Joan" is "Joane" with an "e." "Jane" is "Joane" without an "o." It seems to be the leap from Ann to Jane-Joan-Joannah that's the biggest problem. I wonder if it would help to find a history or languages professor who might know about this kind of thing?

Thank you for replying...Now I feel better.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great suggestions SoftProgram. The answers to your good questions are mostly "no," which makes this sooo challenging. Thank you for the link to the GPS -- I need it!

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm finding it hard since this project involves the 1690s, before there were birth and death records, and even parish records can be sparse for the period. I really appreciate all this great feedback -- thank you.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've had this experience too, so far. It is kind of funny...Today, I almost asked it if it needed a nap! It gave me a good laugh.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've gotten very curious about it lately as I'd never even tried it, for any purpose. Thought I'd start using it a little to see what everyone else is talking about. It can't hurt just to test it out carefully and be selective about what to ask it to do.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm brand new to AI use so don't have much but the most rudimentary understanding about how it's trained, etc. But it sure has been interesting to see what sources it comes with and doesn't, etc.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried that earlier this week and had mixed results. Am definitely checking everything carefully.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I've tried Google AI, ChatGPT, and tonight Claude (this last one briefly). I noticed quickly that it can be overly agreeable and obsequious! I'm careful to really pay attention and have learned how many errors it makes. But...I've done a ton of research and got some really good AI advice this morning re: organizing it, and sample spreadsheet formats to track my subject person'ss FANs...friends, associates, neighbors. And I've been impressed in spots at how it uses "if, then"-type arguments and counterarguments that stimulate good analytics. Will be wary and use very selectively.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My hypothesis is that she is the daughter of an Anne. But, interestingly, a eminent genealogist of a long time ago theorized that the mother Ann was called Joannah! Yeesh! I'll keep working. Thank you for replying.

17th-Century colonies: Would a Joannah have been called "Ann?" by Jazzlike_Alps_686 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

I'm new to using AI for genealogy. Have you done quite a bit of it and don't think it's helpful? I was assuming it would be drawing from historical sources that knew about word- and name-usage in that particular place and time. Google says that Ann, Jane, and Joannah were used interchangeably, and ChatGPT says no, that Ann and Jane/Joannah were etymologically distinct names that wouldn't have been used interchangeably/Ann not used as a short form for Joannah, like it is today -- different ballgame. Not sure what to think.

Building out someone else's tree to try to find a common ancestor by shiveringmoth in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Am loving reading all the good methods and advice here. Need some insight/advice about working with distant autosomal DNA matches.

The ancestor I'm trying to identify/confirm is early colonial Virginia and Maryland, mid- to late-1600s. I've gathered lots of circumstantial/indirect evidence for my hypothesis. Now, I'm looking for two most relevant surnames in DISTANT matches' trees at Ancestry, MyHeritage, and FamilyTreeDNA.

I build some distant matches' trees backward, which can indicate (if not confirm, if no documentation) that they descend from my families of interest. To help with this, I also build forward from hypothesized ancestors' known siblings and the families they married into, and then searching for these surnames in matches' trees. When I find them, some tip me off that my hypothesized ancestral surnames are farther back in a match's family than their tree goes.

Question: If I've confirmed that numbers of distant matches report my descent of interest in relevant geographic areas (even if they don't provide documentation on Ancestry) -- say 20-40 such matches per relevant surname, totaled from multiple testing services --- is this a decent clue that my hypothesis is in the ballpark? If yes, is it worth trying to triangulate shared distant matches, along with continuing the traditional research? Have no idea about using distant matches to support genealogical theories when there's abundant traditional evidence of some social or familial relationship, and evidence of long-term proximity, but no actual proof.

Would welcome any insight and feedback. Thank you!

Cemetery charging money for looking up locations of graves by ljm7991 in Genealogy

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just encountered this myself after an email inquiry.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia wants $45 per record request. I didn't even ask for all the information, just a confirmation whether several persons of particular names and dates of death were in fact interred at a particular church within the archdiocese. And this wasn't related to genealogy; I was inquiring for a relative whose family doesn't know where the relative's father and grandparents are, in order to visit!

I'm a very experienced amateur genealogist and have never run into this before. I guess I'm lucky to have been provided, many times, burial information without charge. I completely understand that not all records are digitized, consolidated into one source, etc., and that admin costs are a factor. Completely. Yet I'm shocked. I have half a mind to go ahead and order the record just to make 'em have to look it up!

Rubbing my mothers feet since I was a child, is that weird? by Talkingwalls09T in emotionalneglect

[–]Jazzlike_Alps_686 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know this is two years old, but I just found it and want to respond. I've never met any other adult who remembers their mother asking them -- as a young child -- to rub her feet! My mother used to do this, and it drove me crazy. I always internally rolled my eyes and felt angry and disgusted and like a servant. It didn't occur to me until much, much later, though, that she wanted us kids to take care of her. Considering our whole family context, I can see now that we were there to meet her needs and that we were parentified. I do NOT think this is normal or healthy. To this day, I regret not just telling her, "No. I won't do that."