Feedback on Activities: Surname Origin from Dictionary of American Family Names

Katie20412

I am enjoying the this activity option, but have noticed an error. It appears that the surname KEPL has been conflated with the surname KEHL (variant of KOHL) and the same information has been attached to both surnames.

These are most likely two distinct surnames given the geographic distribution of each and the surname KEPL does not appear in the Dictionary of American Family Names, so I feel that this is an introduced error.

Thanks for your attention!

Dennis J Yancey

Frankly I wish they would do away with the surname origin "fluff"

First of all - it is extremely rare that all (or even most) people using a given surname are all related or all have the same family origin.

Second - so much of what has been written about Surname Origins - is often based on people's theories and opinions - actual records that prove how a specific family chose their surname - in the days when surnames came into existence is rare (1200-'s to 1400's - usually).

There are thousands of cases like Miller, Baker, Smith where DNA evidence clearly shows literally thousands of disjoint families using the same surname but with no connection

But as to specific comments about specific families - like KEHL - FamilySearch is clearly not going to make adjustments based on thousands of varying potential feedback comments - due to the issues I just summarized. they are simply sharing what has been commented on the surname in that ONE PUBLISHED source - a source whose main intent was to make a profit on the book.

Name origin books - should be taken with a pretty large grain of salt. They may be a summary of some of the most common theorized origins for that surname. but there are surely almost uncountable exceptions -

In my humble opinion - most of what has been written about surname origins - isnt even worth the paper it is written on.

The name origin for the YANCEY surname for example in DAFN - is blatantly wrong - but comes from other prior published sources that were referenced - based on people's guesses and not evidence.

CAVEAT EMPTOR - most surname origin statements aren't meant to be an explanation of how YOUR specific family originated. Trust, much more, your own research specific to your own unique family and based on, as far as can be, real evidence, before you trust any surname origin book - which rarely if ever cites actual records where proof of the surname change exists and all so often is simply replicating someone's guess (from decades ago) that people have then passed on again and again without evidence. Bad surname/genealogy info -propagates/replicates like wildfire especially in our modern digital world.

In short - dont confuse "families who share a surname" with "related families"

Dennis J Yancey

note the surname origins (inside Familysearch) is not based on some search algorithm - - as far as I know it is based on ONE published source and one source only: Dictionary of American Family Names, - which is not even a production of FamilySearch . . .

(though of course that one source has as its sources thousands of sources for it - - but again so much of surname origin stuff - is simply people's theories . . . even when it has a scholarly looking name like DAFN has)

It was probably some contractual agreement to use it between FS and the authors of DAFN

thus - - the reason it cant just be changed . . . FS is not the author and there are surely contractual nuances.

FS doesnt want to get in the complicated business of arbitrating fact and fiction about Surname Origins - and frankly I dont blame them - but I wish they would just remove the whole DAFN/surname origin fluff all together.

Katie20412

You make excellent points - each and every one!

I only wish that information that is obviously incorrect (for instance, the result of a bad search algorithm or the victim of a typo) could get weeded out. Yet, like persistent vegetation, they seem only to be multiply and spread.