Abbreviated names found while indexing and what would help in searching the database.

LegacyUser

Freddy Mendez said: Regarding indexing, I am a bit troubled when, usually, a first name is written in a record in an abbreviated form and we are asked to enter as it is written in the record, then this entry is published directly as entered might be misleading when we later we look for that particular name in the database. For instance, the Spanish name Franciso is usually abbreviated as "Fran" followed with a short upwards line and ending in "co", the entry is later shown just as Franco, which in the best case is the Italian version of Francisco. In cases that we are indexing registers from our own country where we are pretty familiarized with names, it would be helpful if we could enter the name when indexing as it really is meant to mean to be rather than the abbreviated version, although for safety we could maybe have a way to mark the "interpreted" abbreviation (or even enter both) so we leave open a window to interpret it differently.
Thanks FS for such a great service that provides for all people interested in learning more about our ancestors.

LegacyUser

Carol Jo Menges said: There are times in English language names when an abbreviation is used, such as "Jno" (no period), that can stand for more than one longer name. I always thought it meant "Jonathan", but recently it was used for a man who's name was "John"--which pretty much makes no logical sense.

After sorting through many reasons why we could go one way or the other on this issue, I've come to the conclusion that it's wiser to not presume to insist that a rendition of what looks quite like an abbreviated name actually is one. We're presuming something we can't really know for sure without further source justification. For myself, I add a host of AKA's for whoever needs them which allows me to find this person by a different name in a private database--such as RootsMagic--than the one that FamilySearch is keyed into.

Remember also that there are the pretty-much-one-off times in history, such as World War I, when at least American soldiers who only had one given name plus a surname were asked to come up with a middle name for official military recruitment records. A lot of them used a capitol letter with no period--ever--just because. But we might presume it surely must mean an abbreviated name derived from a favorite member of the family; and that presumption could extend to researchers believing they have the correct name figured out based on their logical assumptions.

There's always a space somewhere in the data to allow for us to write our presumptions for others to consider. For these and other reasons I believe the record should remain as it shows, with Also Known As names given in the "Other Information field of a Person's page.

LegacyUser

Paul said: In the examples given,I believe it shows it is definitely preferable to record the name as it appears, when indexing. If I were searching for a "Franciso", I would probably first input Fran* to the First Names field, as it is quite likely the name could be wrongly transcribed, in any case. Failing any positive results from that, I would then try an F* input, and also check the box alongside.

In the case of "Jno", (always representing "John" as far as I have found) the FamilySearch algorithm produces both "John" and "Jno" (as well as Jonathan) results, whatever is inputted.

The two factors that come to be of importance here are:

Firstly, the use of wildcards, if you believe a name might have been abbreviated or spelled incorrectly. Apart from F* or Fran*, use Franc* or Fran*c* to reduce results or to allow for spelling variants.

Secondly, take care in checking the "exact match" boxes in certain cases. In Carol's example no "Jno" results would be produced if you inputted "John" (with exact match checked), of course.

I'm not sure if there is a Knowledge Article on the subject, but I try to think of all possibilities regarding how a name might have been recorded / indexed, especially when I'm sure it is in the database yet still can't be found. For example, I was wrong in thinking the best way to reduce results for my GREENGRASS relatives was to check the exact match box (to cut out GREENACRE, etc., results). This is because I found some indexers had wrongly recorded the name as GREENGRASF, mistaking the "long s" in the original register for an "f".

It really is a case of imaging the remotest of possibilities of how even a quite "simple" name might have been indexed (or originally recorded) and using different search methods (like wildcards) to - hopefully - find that record that hitherto has proved so elusive.

(There are so many I can think of, but just one more example: I found problems in finding LATHAN relatives, so always input LATHA*, to include LATHAM results. I even found one by inputting *ATHAN - as it had been incorrectly indexed as SATHAN!)

LegacyUser

David Newton said: The original text in the original document should always be transcribed verbatim and should always have primacy. That said there is also a place for interpretations and explanations in documents which are searchable. So if there is a standard abbreviation for a particular name then the standard abbreviation should always be transcribed verbatim but an expansion of that particular abbreviation should also be associated with the record for searching purposes.

Less clear-cut is the case where someone has mucked up the spelling of a placename for some reason, like a strong accent being misunderstood by a census enumerator. Fixing that requires at the very minimum extensive knowledge of the language concerned and very often requires extensive knowledge of the local geography concerned, so it cannot go on as part of standard record transcription. Nevertheless it can be applied by someone with the requisite detailed knowledge, again secondary to the exact transcription.

LegacyUser

Juli said: "Jno" is always John, or more precisely Jo(h)annes, the Latin version of that name. I believe it comes from a loopy flourish or superscript 9 that was a common abbreviation mark for the Latin nominative ending (most commonly -us); in English, this symbol usually eventually evolved into the apostrophe, but in the abbreviated name Jn9 it seems to have evolved into Jn° and then Jno.

LegacyUser

Carol Jo Menges said: I've seen "Jno" be either Jonathon, Jonothan, and John. The Latin equivalent too. "Always" as one particular rendition didn't play out.

LegacyUser

Juli said: I agree with other replies: indexing should not expand abbreviations. However, if at all possible, abbreviation marks should be included in the transcription -- for example, Fran'co rather than Franco. I don't know where the current indexing software stands on punctuation in names, but I do know that unfortunately, FamilySearch is prone to considering everything beyond the English alphabet to be mere frou-frou, so it may very well turn an indexed Fran'co into Franco.

LegacyUser

Carol Jo Menges said: Other languages replete with diacritics we don't use much in English are supported in FamilySearch, it seems to me that diacritics we don't often use--such as the apostrophe in Fran'co--shouldn't be a particular problem. My maternal lines are all Galician (Greater Ukraine). Ukrainian, Polish, and sometimes German names (especially place names) are all found in official records, with and without diacritics. I just have to be open to what's there is the record and accept it, making any additions in fields that are available to me (such as AKAs).

I have no idea exactly how FamilySearch makes the switch from English equivalents to Galician ones unless whatever the next researcher chooses to use takes supremacy for the time he/she is logged in and working on the same people. One day I'm working on my own ancestors in Romanized alphabet, and the next time I come back to the same people Cyrillic has taken over. Luckily for me I have some understanding of it. Does it make it hard? Sure... Insurmountable? No. I used to read and extract them from both Romanized and Cyrillic script for records from Austria-Hungary; it just depended on the time in history which was used.

I figure this whole conversation has some connection to our eventually needing to learn enough about earlier languages and changes in place names so we'll be able to make some progress in the work, rather than insisting only one system that we're used to should override all changes that future researchers who come across our relatives may make. Those changes can happen in a nanosecond from the time we close out the program anyway. They're not only "our" relatives. They belong to *many* people throughout the world.

LegacyUser

Freddy Mendez said: Thanks for the extensive replay. I agree that in many cases we may not be 100% sure, but there are cases that there is only one interpretation in a given language, for instance in Spanish records Man'l is always Manuel (although the apostrophe in the manuscript record is just a short upwards line and the final "l" is almost a super index. and few others. Nevertheless, I agree that it is safer not to interpret abbreviated names, but at least those should be marked someway (the apostrophe suggested by some seems a good option).

LegacyUser

Freddy Mendez said: Thanks all for your comments. Certainly there are important reasons not to try to guess or not even an informed guess. As long there is some way to mark an indexed name as probably abbreviated, it may help some users to try some other name variations while searching persons.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Something to keep in mind.

Before the 1900s, spelling of names, including the abbreviations used, was up to the recorder. Where abbreviations were involved, it depended upon how the recorder typically abbreviated a name.

That doesn't preclude those records where the recorder decided to use more than one abbreviation...

As David Newton points out, use the name as it appears, whether abbreviated or not.