When is a male Prog not 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=
The categories the present system implies for males are SV/Prog, and Prog (only daughters). (I'm only raising it now because I've just come across a couple of these only daughter ancestors for the first time.)
SV alone isn't possible because his existence as son means his father can't be only a PROG.

OK I agree in the current set of definitions SV can not exist on his own.

I also agree that we have two different concepts:

1) a person currently designated as SV/PROG and still has male descendants
2) a person currently designated as SV/PROG and has no descendants or only female descendants from a certain generation ( only coincidentally determined after that generation by analysis or by having a structured monitoring system determining that a currently designated SV/PROG "has no descendants or only female descendants from a certain generation"

The only difference between the two:
1) still passing on his genes
2) stopped passing on his genes

[ Not clouding the issue at this stage where a descendant donated his sperm and progeny continues regardless whether through a surrogate carrier or not - Luckily Geni's facility of adoption/fostering adequately covers that if disclosed}

No - a person who only has daughters still passes on his genes. He doesn't pass on his surname

Yes, you did misunderstood, If WE go to the original question' When is a Male Prog not a SV?
I either in THIS DISCUSSION or in the one" SIMON VAN DER STEL cant be a S/V " try to explain S/V and Prog. has not the same meaning. To differentiate between the persons with the same SURNAME who settled in SOUTH AFRICA ( and the others who REMAIN in Europe, OR WHERE EVER with the same surname) we put S/V in the suffix block.PEOPLE FURTHER BACK , with the same surname up to year Zero cant be S/V`s except if if you put them in another context , for instance the Potgieter who migrated from Germany To the Netherlands can be called a S/V (with the meaning that he is the person who started the family name in the Netherlands)

In the case as you put it above, and taking the criteria as to who qualify .for a S/V inconsideration, he still qualifies for S/V, although his surname is not carried forward.
The same would be if he had ten sons who dint produce offspring.

You use PROG IN A GENERAL SENSE> Every one who procure/produce offspring is
PROGENITOR in the general sense. It is wrongly used from the beginning in the South African concept or any country where you want to HIGHLIGHT/HONOUR/BRING TO ATTENTION the person who first bring that surname to that Country. For instance if you want to do it in Australia, you will have to put something with it to distinguish that WILSON FROM ALL THE OTHER WILSONS IN that case I suggest you use AUS/Prog
In South Africa the language difference where we use S/V and more or less any English user no what that stands for suffice, other wise you should have to put SA/PROG to bring it out

Our system works well and if there are problems or unforeseen circumstances, as for instance, same gender mirages, cloning and what ever, new procedures should be put in place.

Agree with you, Sharon.

+still passes on his genes+
Sorry i am a novice here - I meant Y-DNA

Dries I do not necessarily disagree with you. I am just adressing Sharons question departing from a common departure point i.e. https://www.geni.com/projects/South-African-Progenitors-Matriarchs-....

Once we agree on the definition of the different type of male progenitors, we can address the title names

Thankyou :-)

Daan, the common point is
1) Passes on genes = PROG
2) Passes on Surname, or is married to the person who passed on the surname =SV/SM

If you want to make SV = 1) genes ie PROG; then you lose all the present SMs.

If you want to keep SV = 2) Surname; then you can't make it also include men who only have daughters.

So if I understand now, I say

1) Passes on Y-DNA = Designator 1 (currently SV/Prog)
2) Not passing on Y-DNA = Designator 2 ( Sharon uses Prog)
2a) Have no children at all
2b) Have only daughters.

Wat just trying to cover/map the DNA as well. If this is not feasible, we are back at:

1) Passes on his surname to sons=Designator 1 (currently SV/Prog)
2) No children or only daughters = Designator 2 ( Sharon uses Prog)

It has nothing to do with Y-DNA. It's any DNA. Women don't pass on Y-DNA and they're still PROGS. Men don't pass on mtDNA and they're still PROGS.

Eldest who Passes on ANY DNA = On Geni we use PROG (not just Sharon)
Eldest who Passes on Surname = SV or Marries the SV = SM

Have no children ar all = nothing
Have only daughters = not SV

I'm avoiding the Y-DNA connection, because there are cases (Appel / Botha) where they pass on the surname, but not the Y-DNA
so SV does not mean the passing on of Y-DNA (it just coincides with it in 95-99% of cases).

If you want SV to mean passing on Y-DNA & SM to mean passing on mtDNA,
you end up losing all the present SMs who have biological mothers who are settlers

Fine by me - but do you want to restructure the (DVN?) system like this though?

Johan Ahlers;Sharon have said so many things, will you please be more specific with what part DID you agree -:)
I cant understand why you both, Daan and Sharon, differentiate between some one who has only DAUGHTERS and some one who has only SONS who didn't leave descendants. In both cases the Surname and Dna doesn't go on. .

I am not sure what we want to achieve with this discussion.

Snowwhite got lost in the bush. She saw Oupa Owl sitting in a tree and ask "please Oupa Owl tell me the way out of the bush" "Where do you want to exit" asked Oupa Owl. "Any place" replied Snowwhite. . ' IN THAT CASE YOU CAN TAKE ANY WAY'

A person who has only daughters definitely does pass on his DNA (the y chromosome is only a tiny part of his DNA) - what he doesn't pass on to his grandchildren is his surname.

Daan has resumed the discussion, so I think I'll let him tell you what he wants to achieve. I'm just answering questions.

Between dropping internet connections and cross postings I find it impossible to communicate
I only want to meet a need of differentiating between the existing stamvader (SV/PROG) without too much upsetting current practices and definitions as proposed and discussed some years ago.

I will rather draw up a discussion document which we can then adapt and bash around as much as we like

I don't know what a Discussion document is, but I'd rather not keep going round in circles.

Agree with Daan. No more interuptions from my side till the end proposed product is on the table.

I have hesitated to jump in here because this is such a complicated area as we discovered a few years back when it was explored extensively. We can go round and round in circles, and the more you look at it the more complicated it gets, with so many "what-ifs) and scenarios. Perhaps we make it too complicated?

One point I would like to make is that the Term "SV/PROG" doesn't feature in the de Villiers numbering system at all - the MALE head of a tree there is not given a title/suffix/prefix - but the implied designator is A as the next generation is B. A isn't necessarily the first person to arrive in the country - it is the earliest known researched person in that table, just as in other tables such as Burke's.

Perhaps the time has come to make changes to what we understand or wish the current male "SV/PROG" to mean. There doesn't seem to be a single term that bilingually expresses that that person is the first person to head a family or branch of family of a particular name in South Africa - besides which changing it now would be impossible. Yes - sadly for some - this is/has been based on the male generated line of descent - with the mother acknowledged - differentiating between whether she was the first of her family in SA or of an established family.

The big issue seems to lie in the interpretation of what a Stamvader is - and whether stamvader actually means Progenitor - the definition of which is “an ancestor or parent"; the originator of an artistic, political or intellectual movement. Progeny = offspring or origin. My school “woordeboek” says simply that “Stamvader is an ancestor. A Stamverwant is a kinsman.

The literal break down of "stamvader" (stam and vader suggests the father of a line/branch. So if agreement can be reached that Stamvader and Progenitor mean exactly the same thing in this context - the Male person that starts a family in South Africa - then that is a good starting point.

Whether the line extends beyond the children he or she is father of is neither here nor there (there is no mention of the sex in the progenitor definition, but vader in SV obviously being male) - they are the Prog of A FAMILY, regardless of whether they are daughters or sons.

So that is for me a starting point. Do we designate a different suffix for a man who has only daughters - if so what? Perhaps if it can be accepted that the two words mean the same in this context, perhaps a man who doesn't have male descendants can be simply bracketed?

Male descendents - SV/PROG
Only female descendants (SV/PROG) or [SV/PROG]

Re-naming the numbers of profiles involved is just too big a task to ask - but identifying those who had only daughters would be much easier as there were obviously fewer.

In conclusion I don't think you can strip a person of the SV/PROG title just because he doesn't have male descendants, or because the male line comes to an end further down the line.

Food for thought

The system has to be internally consistent or it's pointless to have at all.
I support the use of SV to mean eldest biological progenitor, and will rewrite the SM definition to mean the same. That simplifies the designators a lot.

So - SV/PROG regardless of whether there are male progeny or not - the existence of progeny even for 1 generation being sufficient to "earn" the title?

Yes. So SV = the same as PROG.

We will lose a number of present SMs to their mothers.

That's ugly and untrue Dries.

http://www.saintclair.org/numbers/numdvp.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_numbering_systems

This Discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with translations between languages.

It has nothing whatsover to do with the fact that SV/SM are Afrikaans words and PROG English words.

Nothing at all.

It has to do with the fact that we have two different systems operating on the SA Geni tree to label first founding ancestors:

- 1. One indicates the BIOLOGICAL ancestor.
- 2. The other indicates the CULTURAL (surname) ancestor and his wife.
They are NOT SYNONYMOUS (the same thing)

Please remember, that this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with translations between languages. It is irrelevant to the problem what we call them in whichever language.

The problem is that they are completely different constructs (underlying principles).
Completely different.

At the moment, it so happens that the Afrikaans words are used to indicate the Cultural / Surname founding ancestor and his wife; and the English word is being used to indicate the Biological founding ancestors - male & female.

It happened like this because that is how the Afrikaans words SV/SM was used when it was put onto Geni:
to indicate the cultural surname founding ancestor & his wife.

I have no anti - Afrikaans feeling about this at all.
It is ugly to make this Discussion about that, and suggests it hasn't actually been read at all, and you owe me a substantial apology.
I have, in fact, been trying to retain the SV/SM surname designators - because making them into biological designators loses the presently indicated SM wives of the surnamed SV, if they emigrated with their mothers.

As there has been no objection to June's suggestion above (which appears to me to be a misunderstanding of the problem along the lines of translation as well) but which also suggests that she believes there is no reason to protect the SV/SM designators to avoid a backlash from the DVN in the suffix community; we can proceed to make the SV/SM completely synonymous with the PROG
ie they will all be BIOLOGICAL designators from now on.

Although the issue here only is a need to differentiate between stamvaders whose family name ended by only having daughters (PROG suggested by Sharon) and other stamvaders (titled SV/PROG currently used in GENi), we need to revisit/summarise some concepts.

The name stamvader (SV/PROG in GENi) generally used amongst genealogists and in the SA Family registers is the senior male progenitor in a family line first to arrive in South Africa and had descendants born in SA. His wife is named stammoeder. More stamvaders with the same family name arriving in SA are chronologically numbered 1,2,3…
The users use the family line name and biological line to group the descendants and also appear like this in SAF/SAG. There is no requirement pertaining the sex of his progeny to be a stamvader and a line will only peter out when no children or only daughters are born.
If children are taken into the tree who were not born from the bloodline descendants, they are appropriately handled in Geni using biological/adoption facility and in SAF by using [..] around the number, without necessarily changing the last name. The practice is followed only if the facts has been disclosed/substantiated.
It is clear that stamvader does not only have a cultural but also a biological connotation and no differention is made between the above two situations.

In GENi however we have discussed specific requirements and agreed on certain standardized names, whether in Afrikaans, English or Afrikaans/English. They are
SV/PROG (stamvader/progenitor) which is a singular concept
SM(stammoeder) who is the wife of the SV/PROG
PROG(progenitor) the oldest female member of the family line
SM/PROG(stammoeder/progenitor) when the female are both the above therefore a dual concept.
Was hoping to find a solution not to make too many changes, I had in mind that we can use PROG ( in male sense) which has exacly got the same meaning as SV/Prog and differentiating what Sharon has in mind. There will be very few changes involved because these cases will only found by thorough monitoring and research or are thoroughly documented. Having got the same meaning would also mean(redefinition) that a SM is the wife of a SV/PROG or a PROG

Rereading June's I offer
Male descendents - SV/PROG
Only female descendants PROG
where SV/PROG = PROG as far as stammoeder SM is concerned