When is a male Prog not an SV?

And I assume we do not use "Only female descendants" to be applicable to the first generation only - to be consistent

And if we really want to indulge (lot of changes)
Male descendents - SV
Only female descendants PROG
where SV = PROG as far as stammoeder SM is concerned

I waited 3 days for dissent, and updated the project according to what June said.

It simply isn't logical or sensible to be giving both the mother and her daughter in the same line the label of Progenitor. It makes nonsense of the category.

First biological male ancestor labelled SV/PROG
First biological female ancestor labelled SM/PROG

Gender of children is only relevant to surname ancestry, so it is now irrelevant.

Number of generations deserves its own discussion.

=First biological female ancestor labelled SM/PROG=
I cannot find the discussion portion that iniated this conclusion. Do we discard now our previous definition of PROG(female)?

I feel quite sure that my post was very specifically about the question of whether SV/PROG applies to a man who has only daughters, or whose male line comes to an end further down the line - I didn't explore the female SM/Prog, Prog or SM angle at all - as that wasn't what this question was about. I don't see that I suggested a woman and her mother both get named as progenitor?

Sharon, The substantial apology, will be given as soon as the discussion comes to a conclusion.

Here are my posts in this thread saying repeatedly that if the SV & the SM become biological indicators, you lose the present SMs who are not the first biological mother:

https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1102042
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1102278
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1102279
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1102507
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1102940
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1103190
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1103203
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1106481
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1106533
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1106536
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1106557
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1106575
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1106737
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1106742
https://www.geni.com/discussions/159478?msg=1106743

=Do we discard now our previous definition of PROG(female)?= No, PROG has always been the word we use to describe the eldest biological female.

Your post above - at 2.10 suggests that I said something about giving both the mother and her daughter in the same line the label of Progenitor.

I didn't think there was a problem in the SM/PRog etc. area

=I feel quite sure that my post was very specifically about the question of whether SV/PROG applies to a man who has only daughters, or whose male line comes to an end further down the line - I didn't explore the female SM/Prog, Prog or SM angle at all - as that wasn't what this question was about.=
You cannot change SV to mean biological, and have SM mean wife. The system has to be internally consistent. I have said this repeatedly in this discussion. In specific reply to your last post, I said "We will lose a number of present SMs to their mothers." Then I waited.

= I don't see that I suggested a woman and her mother both get named as progenitor?=
You didn't.
That is the effect if you try to make the SV/SM mean both biological and cultural at the same time.

=You cannot change SV to mean biological, and have SM mean wife.=
Do not follow
SV/PROG is biological an SM is the biological mother of his children, whether married to her or not.
Maybe I do not understand the cultural part

=It simply isn't logical or sensible to be giving both the mother and her daughter in the same line the label of Progenitor.=
Do we do that? We always give the wife of the SV only the title SM if a more senior female ancestor (PROG) lies within her line

SV & SM have both got to describe the same construct/ principle:
If SV means eldest biological father of a line
then SM must mean eldest biological mother of a line

No, we will be doing that if we decide that SV/SM mean the same as PROG (as June says above)
AND THEN we continue to use SM to also mean wife / partner

I can't help feeling that this is being over thought and complicated and thought that we had come to conclusions before after a great deal of deliberation. I thought that we were happy with the conclusions we reached then and don't have the energy now to pursue this into the rather intricate reasoning which I seem to be unable to follow - so please excuse me if I just take a break from this now.

Yes, that's what we do now, as I've been repeatedly pointing out when you've been saying it's my "proposal/suggestion/implication"

SV= eldest surname of a line SM =his partner
Prog = eldest biological male and female of a line

If you now want SV to mean eldest biological male, in order to include the cases where he has no surname descent line
Then SM automatically becomes eldest biological female

It certainly seems to me that I'm putting in a lot of energy here.

My initial solution is to keep the status quo - ie changing the one or two founding male ancestor profiles who don't have a surname descent line to only PROG.
-When I implement this after the Discussion appears to have ended, there are objections.

I start again with more explanations about what the status quo actually is, & what the implications of changing it are.
June says "Perhaps the time has come to make changes to what we understand or wish the current male "SV/PROG" to mean, & calls for "agreement ..that Stamvader and Progenitor mean exactly the same thing"
-Great. This is a much simpler system than the status quo. I comment & the Discussion appears to have ended so I implement that.
Now there are objections about this that suggest we should revert to the previous option.

It isn't me who's overthinking this.
There are really only two options: Either SV is designating the cultural/ surname founder of a descent line or it is designating the biological founder of a line. Whichever it is, the female of the system has to match it. It is not possible to designate both at once.

I've, so far, avoided commenting in this thread as it seems quite the divisive issue (and I try to avoid those). I wanted to speak in favour of one of the options which is simply SM/PROG and SV/PROG for earliest biological ancestor of that line (paternal or maternal). For cases like Botha/Appel and Dry/Waldeck etc. I feel that adequate annotation in the About section, Curator Notes, and links to references/sources should suffice in most cases.

Personally I wouldn't dream of asking the Scots to abolish their Clans and Septs. Also the Chief of Clan Drummond (an Drumanach Mor) is hardly the first of his line in Scotland. Meaning, I understand the argument in favour of SM/SV as terms of reverence, aside from their use to designate biological progenitors.

There are Viljoens, then there are the Viljoens that killed Frederick Percy Hunt. Personally, I like knowing who the SV is of that branch of the Viljoens. There are Potgieters and there are the descendants of Hendrik Potgieter. I hope I've made my meaning clear; I appreciate the use of SV/SM as terms of reverence for those lines.

There must be some way that we can implement SM/PROG and SV/PROG as biological progenitors whilst retaining the significance of the SM/SV prefix? I wouldn't mind seeing one-name projects on Geni.com i.e. Viljoen Family Project with each branch represented per project (preferably maintaining the system as used in South African genealogies).

Well you've come out in favour of both options here, Drummond, and it's really great that you have understood that there are two and what they are.
Yes, simply mentioning it seems to act as an invitation to exercise old grudges. Whatever you say, even when you're laying out the facts for both sides, you're criticised :-( Often by the same people?
The solution of ignoring it, doesn't make it go away, though - so perhaps I should simply preface every post with "Don't Kill The Messenger".

you say:
1. =I wanted to speak in favour of one of the options which is simply SM/PROG and SV/PROG for earliest biological ancestor of that line (paternal or maternal).=
[This is the most logical from my point of view too, especially if, as June points out, there is no real reason to be trying to maintain the SV/M option as is because it's not actually a DVN thing. We lose no SVs this way, and that seems to be the priority.]

2. =There must be some way that we can implement SM/PROG and SV/PROG as biological progenitors whilst retaining the significance of the SM/SV prefix?=
[The way we do it at the moment? Which boils down to adding PROG to the SV if he is also biological, and removing PROG from the SM if her biological mother is also a settler.
But, as I said above - we lose no SVs by doing it the first way. We simply lose some presently designated SMwives to their biological PROG mothers.ie The oldest settler Stam Moeder of a Stam Vader's line will, in some cases, be his mother-in-law, not his wife.
The only reason we did it the second way was to protect the use of SM as wife/partner of the SV.]

As to using Name projects for lines. Yes!! I / we do that already, and when you use the DeVilliers Pama system as it was meant to be used in the context of a specifically defined list, not a larger tree - it comes into its own. Personally I've never found a system to beat it.
eg Smuts Family in SA: https://www.geni.com/projects/Smuts-Family-of-SA/30709
eg DuPLessis line: https://www.geni.com/projects/du-Plessis-Genealogy-of-SA/10778

Over years people were setting up family trees and family registers drawn up where there were no misunderstanding on the concepts. Stamvader (Geni : SV/PROG - not 2 concepts just a one word title in Afr/English) and stammoeder (GENi SM) who was his wife/partner and mother of the children fathered by him.

The concept PROG(female) was never used. I had a requirement in my research to honour / acknowledge those numbers of titleless widows/divorced women who accompanied their sons/daughters, who as pioneers to Southwest Africa, became SWA stamvaders and stammoeders ( Geni SM). After much discussion this need was satisfied by using the term Progenitor (female) (Geni PROG) which was brought forward by Sharon meaning the most senior female member in a family who accompanied the family and had offspring born in the country. These terms were documented, understood and accepted and used for the past 2 years or so.

Then Sharon had a requirement to differentiate between stamvaders who only had daughters and other stamvaders. She suggested a term PROG instead of SV/PROG. In principle I have no sweat with the proposal except that imo PROG and SV/PROG are just subsets of Stamvaders.
Apparently the use of the word PROG is inconsistent with our previous definitions and we are argueing now on the position of female progenitor as defined above and Stammoeder.

Why do we then not choose a term for the requirement raised which is not inconsistent with our previous agreed and applied definitions?

PROG was a term Mau and I created in discussion with each other to put on GEni to show a biological ancestor - back when we were the only two SA Curators. It was not used on Geni before that, and resulted from me pointing out that the wife of the SV was not always the female progenitor.

The Discussions you are talking about happened a long time later when we all found that the SM designator was being used willy nilly, resulting in cases where two females of the same line were both being called SM iwhen the wife of the SM had a mother settler who came with her.

I am not suggesting new terminology. This is the terminology and system we agreed on.
It was you who objected to it being applied to the case I found where the surname line didn't continue.

So June suggested it was time to make SV mean the same as PROG.
I did that. Simply designating biological founder works, especially now we have DNA on geni.
If you "have no sweat with the proposal" then what is the problem?

Who was Mau, and what Authority did he or You had to "create " such a controversial word and force it down our South-African thoughts.
I speak Afrikaans well and "Bad" English, what is considered presently as our "official language " at present to a reasonable extent . To my humble opinion" Stamvader/Moeder and Progenitor hasn't the same meaning. ( !) PROGENITOR can be anybody who reproduce with the help of the opposite sex while :. (2 )S/V S/M (stamvader/Stammoeder) is a honor y title given to the first people with a SURNAME WHO arrives in a new country and produce offspring with the same Surname.

Maybe if we took Rhodesia who was basically an English Colony, I knew they had a Publicholiday "Rhodes and Founders day" Maybe June or Annie Kloppers or any other Rhodesian can come forward and tell us what they would have called their first settlers to distinguished them from all other Rhodesian s who reproduce, definitely something like "Founder Fathers / Founder Mothers" and not plainly Progenitors., which can be any body whit out any honor to it. .

Daan, If you are wanting us to stick to the original system where SV/M is used to mean eldest settler of a surnamed line and his wife; and PROG is eldest biological ancestor, rather than making them synonymous with each other - that is also okay.

Sharon, I never disputed your creation of the word PROG and when. I was no even aware of the word and its meaning as you originally intended. It was only made visible to me when we discussed possible titles for my requirement. I realised then that the word PROG(enitor) as defined perfectly satisfied my requirement and appreciated the availability of such a term.
I also have appreciation for a real need and was not against any appropriate term for your need. What I did have a problem was that the choice of the term would imply change of the generally accepted term of stammoeder. I felt to change stammoeder from its current definition to oldest female progenitor is just too drastic without proper discussion and gaining understanding and acceptance from the wider genealogy community in South Africa.
Yes, I would appreciate us to to stick to the original system where SV/M is used to mean eldest settler of a surnamed line and his wife; and PROG is eldest biological ancestor, rather than making them synonymous with each other.
Also, I am not "gatvas" about any terminology to be developed in future - nothing is casted in concrete.

Dries, you are right. Progenitor means voorouer and defines both male and female.
Stamvader and stammoeder are specially reserved for those married progenitors who started the family line in South Africa.
Selection of the terminology for discussion and as Suffix was not so easy one had to use a term generally acceptable for Afrikaans and English users.
It resulted in
Stamvader = Progenitor (male) = SV/PROG in Geni
Stammoeder = wife of stamvader = SM in Geni

At least we have not selected VOLKSMOEDER which has other connotations!!

The original terminology we agreed on is documented in https://media.geni.com/p13/fe/e8/cd/44/5344483cd3f04b5e/stammoeders...

I'm on my tablet so that isn't downloading. What was it?

A PDF doc, It appears to be a follow up to the article written by June and Daan for Genesis.

The article that resulted from all our research here on and huge numbers of scenario questions posed by Daan and answered by me, which failed entirely to attribute me?? I had been told by Judi that that had been rectified. I hope not.