Dutch accents for older records (1700-1800)

P Livingston

Is there a resource to see samples of accented vowels in old Dutch records? I have been applying the umlaut on last names and when there is a full line directly above the letter. However, many of the first names have what appears to be a single accent over the letter. These I have been accenting as they appear, but I'm not certain if that is correct. The following is my next batch, and I thought I had better check.

South Africa—Dutch Reformed Church Registers, 1660–1970 [Part C][M3DX-TH7]

Thank you.

Patricia

A van Helsdingen

@P Livingston

I was able to view your batch, thanks to the help of @LarryClark43

I can see that marks were written above each u in this document. Do not index these unless the project instructions say otherwise. This is merely a different handwriting style to what we use now, and does not indicate a different pronunciation as other accent marks and umlauts do.

gary_noble

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/269546 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJ_(digraph) and https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/there-is-no-letter-y-in-the-dutch-alphabet/

jnel3899022

Here is a link to understanding the ij in South African projects.

https://tinyurl.com/4xu2dxx3

A van Helsdingen

Accent marks and umlauts were rare in Dutch and are not typically used. Some words use umlauts and there accent marks over e in some French loanwords. However it was common to put an mark over u to distinguish it from n. Sometimes y was written with two dots on top, because ij and y could be interchangeable.

I'm sorry but I do not know how to view your batch.

LarryClark43

Hi A van Helsdingen

If you would like to view a shared batch, go to your home page and click on the gear icon at the end of My Batches and put in the batch code. M3DX-TH7

hope this helps

gary_noble

Please do not index South African names with ÿ It has become a major frustration point amongst the afrikaans genealogy community. It must be indexed ij eg: van Zijl

P Livingston

Hello,

Just to clarify: one does not index what is written, but changes the record to ij? If so, may I ask why? That would then not be what a researcher would find when looking at the original record.

Thanks for you clarification.

PL