When is a male Prog not an SV?

:-)

=Immigrant from Britian is Setlaars/Setlars =
All immigrants are settlers, not just from Britain

The DVN numbers are no different from all the other numbering systems which are also based on patrilineal surname line - used universally in other publications such as Burke's - so not peculiar to the DVNs - as Daan says that is a separate issue on its own.

Interesting new thoughts emerging here!

The point was a reference to Daans thought that a matrilineal and patrilineal system can exist together.

Perhaps, when the mt DNA data becomes more complete, our "Settler" progenitors will have to be re-described not as "Settlers", but Returning-Settlers, assuming that our species did originate for Africa-Australis lol :-)

I agree with Daan and the DVN issue with June.
Difficult but easy.
☺

Lol Wilfred - we were home all along :-)

Sharon, are we achieving something? Taking every thing that have been said in consideration, will you please rephrase the problem if one still exists.

While we are at this discussion we can as well handle "same gender Marriages" . Who is going to be what? The surrogate Mother/father should have a place as well. The Dna group should suffice.

I think we are a bit off the mark when translating:' Stam' as tribe or clan. It should be something to do with a tree. That is why we say I am going to look for my "roots" Stam should be trunk or branch. ..

Agree Martin Andreas Karl (Dries) Potgieter. Should be some translation in Afrikaans so that we can also understand.☺
J

Dries, you tell me.

I've answered my first question about whether a father of daughters can logically be called an SV = Answer: No, he can't, but if he has living bloodline descendants, he's still a PROG.

I was too scared to point out a second question: that a man whose surname line has died out should, logically, also not be an SV - even if he did, initially have sons.

I think that what Alex said helped to make it a bit clearer that biological (y & mtDNA) lines are not the same thing as the way we are using SV to indicate Surname 'root' :-) on Geni.

The problem is that many people don't see that very easily, because they never have to think about examples like how to use the SV (Surname root)/ SM system to label the biological mother of the SVs'wife = You simply can't.

One solution to the confusion is to stop using SV to mean 'Surname root', and use it as a direct translation of biological Progenitor. But if we do that, we lose the DVNumbering system that the South Africans (alone on Geni) are putting in the suffix.

Now I don't want to stir up that controversy again - so I've been avoiding pointing that last out (ie that SV can't mean biological Progenitor and still represent the DVN)

It's enough, for me that people see clearly that we are using two different systems (Surname & Biology) so that they do not confuse the two.

On the matter of same sex marriages: Good question :-)

I don't know how the DVN (Surname)system will cope with that.

The Progenitor (biological) system will simple label the oldest biological father and mother as the PROG.

Sharon, Thanks for your patience with me, just get off that camel and i will show you my appreciation.

We wait till Daan gets home, it is understandable that he cant concentrate on this issue while driving.

:-) Once, when I was working in a very misogynist country, my husband was offered 100 camels for me. This is a pretty well-used sales technique with foreign women in the Cairo market, & of course my husband said that he wouldn't part with me for all the camels in Egypt.
Then we proceeded to bargain for his wares, and apparently I drove such a hard bargain that the salesman told my husband that, not only would he not pay any camels for me; but my husband would now have to pay him camels to take me off his hands!! :-) :-)

So - I'm the woman whose value can now be measured in negative camels. I think I may be unique in this :-)

Sharon Doubell I had to laugh about this explanation☺

hehe

While we wait for the problem to solve it self , lets start telling camel jokes : Did you know the one about the camel mechanic who patent his method of letting a camel go faster and further then any other camel, before taking water , after being serviced by his "Long Distance Camel servicing Garage ""

I do not want to be a nuisance so please ten persons replied with a Yes or No

I don't know where you're looking, Dries. 'Progenitor' is a gender neutral term. The first internet search I do produces this:
'progenitor prə(ʊ)ˈdʒɛnɪtə - a person or thing from which a person, animal, or plant is descended or originates; an ancestor or parent.'

Again, we're not using S/M on Geni to mean biological ancestry, so we're not trying to find a direct translation into Afrikaans for Progenitor. The minute we do that, we have to do away with the DVN in the suffix. Is this what you're proposing?

I get progenitor in the READERS DIGEST WORD POWER DICTIONARY the word originated from the Latin word "progignere' and the English for that is "beget" and past tense
I believe is begot. Where you use the combination is for instance "ABRAHAM BEGET/BEGOT IZAC and SARAH BEAR/BORE IZAC.
I dont want to go in to detail about the ''Bees and the Birds" in-front of the young people, but the process couldn't have been the other way round.
You can say that Adam is the Progenater of all mankind (women included)
The Google reference I Found in the Latin Google, a language I am fluent in.

I going to delete my previous input

No further word out of me.-:)

Dries, I still have no idea how that makes Progenitor a male gendered term. English isn't a grammatically gendered language.

I don't want to shock you by going into detail about the birds and the bees, but you do know that the Adam & Eve story isn't a scientific fact applicable to DNA, or any proof of a gendered origin at all? In fact, without the addition of a certain hormone at 6 weeks of development, the baby is a female - ie the default pathway for humanity is female. So, no - you can't speculate for an original male progenitor - called Adam or Odin or anything.

I will limit my arguments here only on the patrilineal line because my intellect wiil limit me to address both concepts

The agreed definitions are not cast in concrete and we could certainly change on consensus or voting if required.

We will have to develop common terms as far Afrikaans and Englisgh are concerned otherwise we will have double barrelled names where the translation could be a differently defined concept eg SV and PROG.

Current definitions
Males
SV = stamvader = PROG=Progenitor is the most senior male member of a family line who first arrived in the country and who had decendants born here. It is designated as SV/PROG in the suffix and is a singular concept
Females
Stammoeder = SM = wife of a Stamvader(Progenitor) and is not required to have arrived in SA and is designated as SM in the suffix
PROG = Progenitor (female) and is the most senior female member of a family line who arrived in SA and has descendants born in SA and is designated as PROG in the suffix.
SM/PROG is a PROG married to an SV has a dual meaning and is designated as SM/PROG in the suffix.

Sharon's proposal is to have SV/PROG split in 2 concepts where SV not allocated to family lines where the surname stopped because only daughters were born

With this as basis i/we will analyse Sharon's proposal

Sharon is your proposal to limit allocation of SV when only daughters are born only to the first generation or all generations eg if in the 10th generation no sons are born in the Doubell family line, there will be no Doubell SV?

Practical implication of limiting SV in all generations would be to maintain a mnitoring system to dcide when to "strip" a SV from his title

This is not my proposal. This is how it is functioning right now on geni.

I'm busy trying to get the China ship list finished by midnight, so it would be helpful if you'd read over the Discussion which you left at the end of Aug. so I don't have to repeat what was said.

My point was that SV cannot function as both a cultural surname ancestor designator, & a biological ancestor designator. There will be men who are biological ancestors without being surname ancestors. These are men who arrive in the country and don't have sons, but do have daughters.

I would say that once a surname has died out in a country, the man is no longer an SV.

Maybe I misunderstood. Up to now a male with descendants was automatically titled SV/Prog. You propose/suggest/imply having separate concepts for males eg. SV, PROG and SV/PROG.
Whatever, your view: " once a surname ( for a specific family line ) has died out in a country, the man is no longer an SV" - my insert

This implies that the SM/Prog initially allocated to his wife also changes to only PROG

=This implies that the SM/Prog initially allocated to his wife also changes to only PROG=
Yes, that is correct.

The reason we know that the old (DVN?) system is designating SV as a surname ancestor is because of who they designate as SM: Not the biological female prog - but the wife of the male ancestor who bears the surname first in the country.

Should you want to change the system so that the Afrikaans designators SM/SV refer to biological instead of surname factors, ie - they mean the same as the English designator PROG presently does, that's a possibility, to my mind.
I find the present additional surname system quite ponderous - but I'd thought you would not want to do that, as you'll lose numbers of presently indicated StamMoeders, in the process.

=Maybe I misunderstood. Up to now a male with descendants was automatically titled SV/Prog. You propose/suggest/imply having separate concepts for males eg. SV, PROG and SV/PROG=
I am not proposing, suggesting or implying. I am saying that you already do. If I were to propose anything, I would suggest you change it so that SV means biological PROG, but that would mean you'd lose all the SMs who are not biological PROGs, and I didn't think you'd be happy with that, so I haven't proposed it.

=Whatever, your view: " once a surname ( for a specific family line ) has died out in a country, the man is no longer an SV" - my insert=
I don't understand what you're saying here. You seem to me to be simply repeating what I said in the insert. I must be missing something.
You asked my view about the definition of an SV, I said I thought he should have living surnamed descendants. I'm not hung up on that either way.