2,037
edits
Changes
m
no edit summary
''Given name'' is relabeled in the UI as ''Given name(s)''
== Secondary Surname Surnames and connectorconnectors===== Introduction ===
In several cultures people have two surnames. Examples:
# Portugal/Brazil: 4 surnames is common: Given Name | Mother Surname(s)| Father Surname(s)
# Joaquim de Lima e Silva
# García Álvarez de Toledo y Carrillo de Toledo [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garc%C3%ADa_%C3%81lvarez_de_Toledo_y_Carrillo_de_Toledo]
# José de Mascarenhas da Silva e Lencastre
===Discussion===
====Let's discuss: García Álvarez de Toledo y Carrillo de Toledo====
* How should it be parsed? How many surnames are in it? Well, García is a given name that is now seen only as a surname, but things were different in the past. It seems that "Carrillo de Toledo" would be a second surname, but there are other problems.
* Is "Álvarez" a real patronymic? This means García is the child of some Álvaro (possibly "de Toledo", but no guarantee). His children will probably use the "Garcés" (or even "García") as patronymic and, possibly, "de Toledo" as surname. This scheme was valid until ca. 1200. In this case, Álvarez should go into the patronymic field or, as is common, as part of the given names. "de" would go into the surname prefix field.
* Is "Álvarez" a false patronymic? In this case, his father was not Álvaro, but he got his name (given plus patronymic) from some ancestor or relative of notice named "García Álvarez" (not necessarily "de Toledo"). In this case, the best coding is probably the same as for real patronymics except that context does not help a lot. This is after ca. 1200.
* Is it a non fixed part of the surname? It is a dark period where patronymics start being inherited but they have not solidified. In this case, García's father was "Álvarez de Toledo" but some of Garc'ia's siblings would be just "de Toledo", as would some of his children. Some of them might even have a different patronymic. In this case, IMHO, I think it is best to put all of "Álvarez de" as surname prefix. Otherwise it would sort García under "A" and only an amateur would want that.
* Is it a solidified part of the surname? In this case "Álvarez de Toledo" is uniformly inherited as a block and exceptions are rare. All of it should go into the surname (and sort under "A").
====Let's discuss: Maria Venancia Dávalos de Rivera Mendoza Mate de Luna y Córdova====
in reading page 64 of the 4th volume of Solares Montañeses by Mateo Escagedo Salmón, I find that José Gregorio Ceballos el Caballero (that's just one surname, BTW) married "Maria Venancia Dávalos de Rivera Mendoza Mate de Luna y Córdova". From the context I make the educated guess that those are four sunames: Dávalos de Rivera, Mendoza, Mate de Luna and Córdova. It would be nice to record that, especially since there is no explanation in the source of that "Mate de Luna", that flags the possibility that the source is wrong or an interesting line of research.
=== Solution: surname list and surname name field===
Instead of a single surname, surname becomes a list. Each surname can have a prefix and suffix. Only one surname is considered primary. A connector can be stored too, and
José de Mascarenhas da Silva e Lencastre
would in table form be stored:
order prefix surname suffix primary? connector to next? connector
1 de Mascarenhas / Y N
2 da Silva / N Y
3 / Lencastre / N N
surname field: de Mascarenhas da Silva e Lencastre
=GEDCOM export==
# GEDCOM has support for is multiple surnames. They are separated by commas in the value of the SURN tag. No such provision is there for the NAME tag, so leaving the commas there is arguably not permitted by GEDCOM. Hence, SURN should contain both surnames, seperated by a comma.
# PhpGedview has an extension to the name field that otherwise is not supported, should we follow it?:
:1 NAME Cándida /Sánchez de la Torre/
:2 GIVN Cándida
:2 SURN Sánchez, Torre
= References =
