Please Add a Link to the Associated Language's Word List onto Batch Indexing Pages
Today while indexing records from Sweden I realized that it might be helpful to indexers who aren't fully versed in a language to add a link to that associated languages "Genealogical Word List." This would be most especially be helpful in indexing where terms that aren't currently in use for a language, and may not be known to second language learners, but can be found listed on the word lists; because they were commonly used on genealogically relevant records.
For example, the word piltebarn does not have a translation listed on Google translate, but I was able to find its meaning as "male child" on the Swedish Genealogical word list. https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Swedish_Genealogical_Word_List
Comments
-
If you need to consult the word list for a language, you shouldn't be indexing in that language.
0 -
You are mistaken if you believe that to be true, Julia Szent-Györgyi. Many words commonly used in modern language had quite different meanings and usages in the past. And many words used in the past have fallen out of common usage, or even been lost from common knowledge among native speakers of a language in the present. Just because a person doesn't recognize a word being used on a record written centuries ago doesn't mean they aren't competent to work with that language.
And everyone starts somewhere in this work. I have located records and lineages for numerous ancestors in languages I wasn't intially familiar with, and even now couldn't converse in. If I had waited until I had become an expert in the languages spoken by my ancestors; who knows when their work would have been done.
1 -
One problem with attaching a language word list might be when the records contain more than one language (i.e. Latin and some other language) - and the indexer's native language is yet another (browser/app translations might help). I tend to agree though - the reference to a word list at least can help the indexer gain some experience/vocabulary - and be a close at hand reference.
0 -
@A Christian, there is a world of difference between researching in a language and indexing records in that language. I stand by my statement: if you are so unfamiliar with the language that you frequently need the list of commonly-occurring terms found in a word list, then you have no business indexing records in that language. Do some more research in those records, until you're familiar enough with them that you've progressed beyond the word list. Then you may be ready to index them.
Word lists are great for basic research in a language you don't know, but they are seldom useful for people who actually speak a language: they do not list the obscure names of diseases, occupations, or relationships that might trip up even a native speaker.
0 -
Julia Szent-Györgyi,
I have found the exact opposite, actually. It is far more important to put forth effort than to be knowledgable in a language. Languages are constantly evolving, so even a professional genealogist would be ill advised to believe they have perfect working knowledge and understanding of a language; and will always seek outside sources and verify their work. Genealogical Word Lists are only one of those outside sources. And they will do so because acurracy is more important than hubris.
And yes, even through my own limited experiences in genealogy (both research and indexing/reviewing records) I have found examples where words that were used on records in the past do not match those commonly used or even less commonly known in the modern version of that language. And such changes in meaning and usage are even more common in languages that have developed independantly in different countries and regions around the world; such as Spanish. It does in fact happen.
(Even my use of the word "hubris" is an example. The modern defintion lists it as excessive pride; but according to Britannica.com; its original meaning was "the intentional use of violence to humiliate or degrade.")
0 -
In my experience, obscure words are seldom relevant to indexing: we generally only index names, not things like causes of death or occupations. The only possibly-obscure sorts of words I can think of that may affect indexing are relationships, which may be relevant to figuring out where (or if) to index a name -- but genealogical word lists are hit or miss on their inclusion. (For example, FS's list for Hungarian has the archaic ipa "father-in-law", but not the corresponding [and equally obscure] napa "mother-in-law". It's also missing ara "bride" and ángy "uncle's wife, older female relative", which are both words I have actually encountered in old records.)
Indexing is simpler than researching: you're just fitting the correct names into the correct slots. If you routinely or frequently need a basic crutch like a word list in order to do that, then I feel very strongly that you have no business indexing those records. Indexing by such people results in the most spectacular indexing fails. These can be, um, entertaining in hindsight, but we should avoid creating new ones.
(A couple of "favorite indexing fails" threads on WikiTree's forum: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1262820/what-are-the-craziest-record-transcriptions-anyone-has-found and https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/570619/what-are-your-favorite-mis-transcriptions.)
0 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi @A Christian
I can see both sides of the coin being discussed here. I tend to fall in the middle-ground - that someone with interest in indexing can generally become proficient in indexing records in another language IF those records are fairly uniform in their use of language (the whole point behind the word list and since "Indexing is simpler than researching"). If one becomes familiar with non-native language words that help identify various parts of a record then I have no problem with an indexer with a desire to 'do their best'. I would have no problem with an indexer referring to a 'common word reference list' in that process. If the Indexing Project Admins indicate they do not want this type of indexer to contribute then an indexer should find another Project or the Admins should 'pick' the indexing pool (rather than make it publicly available). If publicly available - but the Project is too Advanced for an indexer 'doing their best' with the available resources - then they should admit the Project is beyond their current proficiency and Return Batch - or use Community/other resources for specific difficult record issues. If FamilySearch wants to assist indexers in gaining language/record proficiency - then they should provide resources (common word list combined with Project examples/Instructions) that can assist (probably best compiled by those with high proficiency/experience - such as Julia mentions in Hungarian).
Since crowd-sourced Projects are publicly available - the indexer should pick Projects with which they are 'comfortable'. There do appear to be some Projects that are not public or for which there is 'limited authorization'.
1 -
The problem with indexers "doing their best" is that they very often overestimate their knowledge, or underestimate the difficulty. They don't know that they don't know. This is why FS's database is full of fathers like Pater Ignotus or Atyja Ismeretlen and children like Todtes Söhnlein or Halva Született: the indexers didn't realize that not a single one of those things is a name. Yes, word lists would've told them that those are "father unknown" and "stillborn", but the point is, indexers doing their best don't realize that they should be checking their assumptions.
I suppose one could argue that there's a "beginner's luck" level of language knowledge: someone who needs to look everything up in a dictionary is likely to catch that it's an unknown father or stillborn child. It's the people in the middle, who don't feel the need to look things up, but don't recognize non-names, who are especially dangerous in indexing. Lack of reliance on reference material is therefore not a good test of competence -- but I feel it is a bare minimum. In mathematical terms, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition.
0 -
I will confess that indexing names correctly is a difficult thing to do without a native level of understanding of a language and the common names and surnames related to it. I have seen the errors you have mentioned as a reviewer of records in English language collections (primarily on records that were recorded in Latin); which is the only language I feel suited to review records in.
That said, Family Search offers explicit instructions on how to index most record types, a review of records that were indexed by other members (who should and typically do have greater experience and knowledge in indexing those types of records) prior to publication, and even a process to edit already publicly released records that are found to contain errors. (I have used that several times when working on records related to my own ancestors) Even so, the faults you have mentioned still occur; not through lack of resources to correct them; but the failure on the part of individuals to second check and correctly understand the information on the records they are indexing. And those types of mistakes can and have happened even with individuals who proved in others instances to have a high level of language proficiency. It is not about being knowledgable, but ensuring that you are putting forth your own best effort; which includes second checking your work for typos and other misinformation. (In that regard searching for names and surnames on Google sometimes can help, or at the very list prove when a "name" actually means deceased, or still born) But that is something that falls to each individual to do themselves; it isn't something that Family Search, or anyone can reasonably enforce; because indexing for Family Search has been and continues to primarily be a work performed by volunteers.
I will promise you this, however, Julia Szent-Györgyi. Since I have no known ancestors from those regions and countries, I will leave the indexing of records for Hungary and its related languages strictly alone. Though if what you have mentioned is true, and the associated Genealogical Word Lists for Hungary on Family Search are missing words that may help with indexing and research, perhaps you should ask for the right to add them to it; or that Family Search have someone with the rights to edit the list add them. It would be a far more proactive and responsible course of action than complaining of their lack of such terms here in order to prove your point.
0 -
The Project - even if Advanced - being publicly available apparently makes an indexers desire 'to do ones best' sufficient. There is no other restriction/requirement. Should there be? Maybe - but I guess that's the crowd-sourcing tradeoff?
0
