Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most distant known ancestor?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by sbrobin View Post
    Why did you do that if I may ask? Won't it be beneficial to learning results some kind of way?
    Because I don't have ydna, only have mtdna. I haven't done Family Finder.

    If you are doing Family Finder or have ydna you can put your paternal info.

    Comment


    • #17
      @ smallaxe

      "Wench" has negative connotations. You wouldn't dare call a governor's wife or other lady of high social standing a "wench", and if you did it would be an insult.

      Comment


      • #18
        OED's definitions

        Originally posted by rainbow View Post
        @ smallaxe
        "Wench" has negative connotations. You wouldn't dare call a governor's wife or other lady of high social standing a "wench", and if you did it would be an insult.
        Yes, this term is emotionally charged.

        The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) offers several definitions which confirm what several posters have said already:

        1.
        a. A girl, maid, young woman; a female child. Now dial. c1290
        b. A girl of the rustic or working class.
        c. As a familiar or endearing form of address; used chiefly in addressing a daughter, wife, or sweetheart. Now only dial. or arch.

        2.
        A wanton woman; a mistress. Obs. exc. arch. More explicitly common, light, or wanton wench, wench of the stews.

        3.
        a. A female servant, maidservant, serving-maid; also handmaid, bondwoman.
        b. U.S. (See quots.)
        1765 Boston Gaz. 17 June, 'Tis said the Fire was occasioned by a Negro Wench carrying a Quantity of Ashes.
        1828

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by michellehall View Post
          I wish we could input our entire maternal line, given that most people match ancestors by surname and the maternal surname changes every generation for much of the world.
          Sort of off topic, but an inherited surname is not common all over the world. I'm Norwegian and in pre 1900 Norway, 99% of all people got their surname from the name of their father. If the fathers name was Peter, his son's surname would be Petersen (Peterson) and his daughter's surname would be Petersdatter (Petersdaughter). I envy you people who are able to use surnames extensively in your research.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by k.o.gran View Post
            Sort of off topic, but an inherited surname is not common all over the world. I'm Norwegian and in pre 1900 Norway, 99% of all people got their surname from the name of their father. If the fathers name was Peter, his son's surname would be Petersen (Peterson) and his daughter's surname would be Petersdatter (Petersdaughter). I envy you people who are able to use surnames extensively in your research.
            I've hit scandanavian in two trees for a friend of mine, and each time its sort of a brick wall for that reason

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by aeduna View Post
              I've hit scandanavian in two trees for a friend of mine, and each time its sort of a brick wall for that reason
              If it's Norwegian, send me a private message if you want any help, and I'll have a look. I can't promise anything, but I'll have a look.

              If it's Swedish, I'm of no help what so ever!

              Comment


              • #22
                Tracing back my Swedish ancestry was easier than tracing my colonial US ancestry. The church book records are fairly complete in many areas, and go back quite a ways. And I think the patronymic naming convention actually makes it a little easier. In my US tree, line after line dead ends with a female where all you have is a first name from a will or deed. With just a first name, it's almost impossible to go any further. But with the Scandinavian patronymic system, you always know at least the father's first name. Sure, there are a lot of Knuts, but there are not a lot of Knuts that have a daughter born with a particular name within a particular time frame. The result is that my Swedish tree is more balanced. The dead ends are scattered around evenly, instead of being concentrated in first name only females.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Farm names too!

                  Originally posted by k.o.gran View Post
                  Sort of off topic, but an inherited surname is not common all over the world. I'm Norwegian and in pre 1900 Norway, 99% of all people got their surname from the name of their father. If the fathers name was Peter, his son's surname would be Petersen (Peterson) and his daughter's surname would be Petersdatter (Petersdaughter). I envy you people who are able to use surnames extensively in your research.
                  Not to mention the complication of people taking on the name of the farm they lived on. Farm names were common in Norway and in some parts of Ireland. Maybe elsewhere, too.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by k.o.gran View Post
                    If it's Norwegian, send me a private message if you want any help, and I'll have a look. I can't promise anything, but I'll have a look.

                    If it's Swedish, I'm of no help what so ever!
                    Swedish in one case, and possibly Swedish or Danish in the other thanks tho

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Say, that's a very good point. I'm told that similar practices continued in some parts of Wales until the mid 1800s and that it was common for Scotsmen to change their surname with a change in landlords through the early 1800s.

                      Surnames are probably sometimes as misleading as they are helpful in such cases.

                      I sometimes think the real problem is the relative UNDER-representation of continental Europeans in the DNA databases. So many Americans, Irish and Brits . . .

                      Originally posted by k.o.gran View Post
                      Sort of off topic, but an inherited surname is not common all over the world. I'm Norwegian and in pre 1900 Norway, 99% of all people got their surname from the name of their father. If the fathers name was Peter, his son's surname would be Petersen (Peterson) and his daughter's surname would be Petersdatter (Petersdaughter). I envy you people who are able to use surnames extensively in your research.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Frederator View Post
                        I sometimes think the real problem is the relative UNDER-representation of continental Europeans in the DNA databases. So many Americans, Irish and Brits . . .
                        Remember that the largest single ancestry among Americans is German, over 15%. Then comes Irish at almost 11%, and African and English at almost 9%. Western Europeans in general are far over-represented in DNA studies. That's why the sub-clades in the R1b haplogroup are classified up to 12 character names.

                        Since China has the largest population, and haplogroup O is predominant there, I imagine O has the most people. But it hasn't been studied to nearly the extent of the common European haplogroups.

                        In my own haplogroup N, we're lucky if we get any matches at all.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by nathanm View Post
                          Western Europeans in general are far over-represented in DNA studies. ..... In my own haplogroup N, we're lucky if we get any matches at all.
                          Doesn't always work out for us tho - G2a3b1... and no matches...

                          But your point is good - a greater sample size from all sorts of genetic enclaves is still lacking.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            What a great story. There were Asians in Colonial America. I found this: "Filipino sailors were the first to settle in the U.S. around 1750 in what would later be Louisiana."

                            Since Tiwan and the Philippines are close to each other geographically their genetics are similar. In fact, haplogroup O1a is common there. I'm not saying you're descended from these settlers exactly (you could be though) but that there were Asians here at the time.

                            Originally posted by charleslow View Post
                            I have traced my ancesters on my paternal side to my GGGG grandmother who was enslaved in PA. but was given her freedom in 1776. She was listed as being a "mulatto wench". I believe this term was used to describe women mixed with African and other admixtures. She had three sons with the oldest one being born about 1767 who were also descibed as being mulatto. I can't find any mention of the man that impregnated her. Now my Y-DNA is O1a2 which is that of a Taiwan Aborigine. So my question is: where and how did the person that impregnated her eventually get from Taiwan to PA? I do'nt believe there were any Asians in PA at that time. Any guesses.
                            Last edited by ahernandez; 10 March 2011, 06:42 PM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X