Indexing of “János Ziszteledo” in Tamási
Comments
-
Tamási, or later Losoncztamási, is completely and fully correct: that's what the place is called in Hungarian. The latest record from Tamási on that film is from 1919 (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1428794), so the post-Trianon placename did not exist for any of the events recorded there. The Slovak placename falls under jurisdictions (including countries) that had not yet been invented in 1919.
I have a great-great-grandfather who was a pastor, and his title got misindexed into a new Fitz- name (Fitzdeado? something like that) on one of his kid's baptisms. It's the sort of thing that happens when records are indexed by people with more enthusiasm than knowledge.
The Slovakia church book indexes are now user-correctable on FamilySearch; I have taken his fate into my hands and fixed the good reverend's entry: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6N98-5524.
(There is an ongoing problem with the index editor, wherein sometimes corrections cause the index entry to become inaccessible, but that gremlin doesn't seem to be interested in simple name corrections, knock on wood.)
0 -
Tamasi is correct, but if you search for this place on the Internet, you will only see a completely different Tamasi in Hungary. The place now belongs to Slovakia and is called Tomášovce (Lučenec).
How I came across Geduly János, I wrote bilaterally.
Jürgen
0 -
If you search the Internet for, say, Hévíz, you'll get the lake or the town in Zala even if you meant the town in Pest-Pilis-Solt-Kiskun. The latter is now disambiguated as Galgahévíz, but even in 1895, the church register consistently called it just Hévíz (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939X-SY9M-FC?i=515&cc=1743180&cat=35229); the prefix doesn't show up until the 1902 gazetteer (https://www.kshkonyvtar.hu/article/56/959/helysegnevtarak).
Is the church register to be considered wrong in its identification of its location? If you're working on people who lived there in the 1800s, should you be appending the 20th-century disambiguator to their residences, just because the other place named for a hotspring happened to "win" in the Great Placename Disambiguation Project of the late 1890s? Will you also supply them with the time machine they'll need to actually visit a place that anyone ever calls Galgahévíz?
It's the same thing, but on steroids, for a place like Tamási. It's not just a disambiguator that the 18th-19th century residents had never heard of, but the entire freightin' country of the Slovak placename. They never set foot in Czechoslovakia or Slovakia, because no such things existed.
The genealogical debate between "name at the time of the event" and "name now" will likely never be settled, but as you can doubtless tell, I am very firmly on the "time of the event" side.
0 -
Everyone will have to decide for themselves. At familysearch, Tomasovce is given as the location of the report - https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GR1Y-3XX?view=index&action=view. And under this name, the location is also very easy to find on a map. Not as Tamasi.
I am writing our ancestral chronicle for people living today and in the future, not for those who lived there 150 years ago or even earlier. That's why I use today's place names. They should be easy to understand without having to look them up in history books. Of course, I indicate what the place was called at the time of the event and in which country it was located, if this has changed.
The Geduly family also lived in today's Ábelová. Before it became Slovakia, it was first called Abelfeuld. Then Abellehota, then Abelova, later Ábelova, then Abellehota again, then Abelova again and finally Abelfalva. I also have an ancestral connection in the Zips - ask someone here what is there and where to look for it. And there are German, Hungarian and Slovakian names for one and the same place at the same time. So which one is the right one?
0