When is a male Prog not an SV?

Agree

So to answer the original question: When is a male Prog not an SV?

We may find SVs who are not Y-Progs.. all the SVs children were either adopted or fathered by other men............ skande!

or Y-Progs who are not SVs, ( the naughty adulterers...)

Also agree Don.

So I was right all the time "S/V" is a progenitor, but a progenitor with a distinction. The first male progenitor who bring or beget offspring in a new country. In English he will be called a Patriarch and his wife a Matriarch (As in an Elephant family)

My humble opinion is that " Founder Father and Founder Mother" would have been far better
descriptive English words"

A few related items:

I assume that for DVN we will use it from the SV as starting point, because with the biological yDNA part, which is not necessarily surname related, covered by Geni's current and future algorithms. DVN must be surname related... (and I believe this also clears up the Appel/Botha case)

Where surnames are the same in spelling, I would like to see a number next to each SV, which relates to the 'time' he first stepped on shore. So that users can related to a specific SV by number too. There must be a space between the designation and the number.

All 2nd line DVNs should then be a1b2 (a2b1 etc.) - to prevent bad mismerging.

As this is an international platform, I would also like to see SA or RSA before the SV designation (like for Namibia SWASV) - to distinguish it from possible uses thereof by other countries and therefore also to be able to search exclusively on those terms through Geni's search algorithms or other methods. I prefer SASV and SASM - but maybe that is too language driven would opt for anything like SAM and SAF as long as it is consistent - and one word, without a "/" as it is currently.

If we can agree on this before we start changing... 'dont kill the messenger' analogy, but it would be a mess if we change without agreeing, or differently...

Jan, there is no proposal to change anything yet... this was simply an attempt to clear up misunderstanding of what we already have in place.

It will take massive effort to re-enter Suffix codes on our large number of Stamouers.

It will also take massive effort to agreement to do it...

I would like to see less generic profile pics used on our SV/ Progs and SMs and SM/Progs, when we last had this debate 2-3 years ago I proposed a series of pics that were more descriptive of the persons origin and status.. mt-Prog and Y-Prog versions were also created., but no buy in was achieved then... maybe that idea is worth revisiting?

Donovan, I believe my suggestions are merely to 'curb' the amount of work required that I foresee as a result of the proposals. Just related - meaning that should be borne in mind. For example, by Surname entails that it would be consistent in majority with what we have. So yes, I can only disagree that it would be a massive effort...

Should have a separate discussion for profile pics... :)

Ok great we agree. DVNs are also a related but separate issue, I'm not a strong advocate of their use but recommend to leave well enough alone... the last round of discussion caused a lot of animosity.

Are you going to make a start on the images, Don?
I've just got 3/4 of the way through adding specific Huguenot profile (I particularly like the new ones you made me - can you make updates for them that apply the Huguenot painting to the rest of them too with y and mtDNA added, so I can use them today as I go on with the ship Lists?

Again, having y and mtDNA Progenitors listed for people who don't have descendants because the line stopped after one generation seems to me to be even more silly than it was before - but I'm only logging my thought about that here. It's not a huge problem. - I can't see that they'll end up on the PROG DNA projects -so it's no real issue.

Sorry about missing words- I'm writing on my tablet that seems to have a mind of its own.

The GISA DVN - as June pointed out - is unrelated to the SV/M prefix issue.
The GISA numbers that are sold are becoming increasingly incorrect, as genetic tests show non paternity events, and slave children between legitimate ones, and more updated records become easily available on the internet. If they're erroneous and causing mismerges, I simply remove them. People who want to maintain them in the suffix need to stay on top of that. I can see no way that that is feasible.

Sharon, I saw an earlier post where you said that DVN is the best (and with that I agreed, so I kept quiet), but I have to admit I was sceptical that you were honest... And now, with this latest post, it is clear to me that I was right at the start. I knew this is just another 'camo' attempt by you to attack the integrity of the DVN system, which your last post clearly demonstrates again.

As stated, I personally don't care what you name a progenitor, but I really care for the accuracy of the tree and eliminating duplicates. In my mind you are trying to 'cross the bridge' by introducing DNA, which is clear to me will be catered by Geni internally and therefore should not be in the suffix fields. We actually only need SV there (whatever you want to call it).

SV is the start of the DVN train...

I said the DVN is the best numbering system to use to create a family list and provided two examples of the many where I use it. That is substantially different to placing it - a self referential listing device - in the suffix on a world tree where it is not feasible to keep it current.

Let's not use this discussion to start personal attacks based on grudges.

I agree 100% Sharon, someone who will never end up on a DNA project, cannot be a biological PROG.

ie. without living biological descendants,

ie A stamouer with zero DNA link to a living person cannot be a Y-DNA or a mt-DNA Progenitor.

But person can be a SV or a SM.... (This is another answer to this threads original question...)

A good one to consider is Jan van Riebeeck

I propose Jan may be a SV, but he is probably not a Y-Prog, as if you click on Jan's DNA we see:

Y-DNA (paternal line only)
There are no Y-DNA results yet for relatives in the paternal line for Jan van Riebeeck.

Is this because his tree is not complete? or is it because his Y -DNA dies out?

Isn't it because he left SA without leaving progeny here?

Sharon, This is new one for me.!. I remember a few years back when you call THE SAME DVN SYSTEM YOU NOW CALL THE BEST, " AN APARTHEID SYSTEM."

At that time I brought it to your attention that it is impossible to call it an apartheid system.
It is strange that Jan and me came to the same conclusion. To differ from a person does not mean that you bear that person a grudge.

.

Please lets keep this discussion positive, personal attacks take us backwards... our personal feelings about the DVN system is not relevant.

Jan had a son, Abraham van Riebeeck, who was born at the Cape..

To call people out personally does mean you bear them a grudge. You have done this a number of times previously on this and another discussion, and I have simply ignored it. If you continue to do this, Dries - I will report you to stop this ugliness. Go and make mischief somewhere else.

I have used the numbering system in projects all along. If you'd ever actually read my posts you would know this. I have said that those who want to keep it in the suffix need to maintain it up to date, or it causes mismerges.

But the DVN system is not connected to the SV/M system, and it is simply an attempt to be disruptive to introduce it here.

The son leaves (with him?) too, though.
You already know that I think it's silly to call him SV or Prog, so you need other input than mine on this one. :-)

Sharon, I have created some images based on my original concept (with the split background) and the painting you like..

https://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000047392553841

Okay great. I'll use them from now on. (Of course I like the colour Y Prog best) :-)

1999- Dec 2009 http://home.mweb.co.za/el/elijo/eng/descend.html - The numbering system used is the one most commonly used in South Africa. The progenitor ("stamvader") of a particular family surname in South Africa is given the number "a", although the number generally does not appear if only one person of a given surname came to South Africa. Where two or more people came to this country with the same surname they would be numbered according to the date of arrival. Thus, Friedrich Both is numbered a1 and Samuel Friedrich Bode is numbered a2.

I believe this is referring to unrelated people not brothers, or fathers.. Daan..

Cousins would be a interesting question though...

The numbering system used is the one most commonly used in South Africa

My take is:
Every stamvader who has progeny has a direct line to any of his decendants to any later generation
therefore
Anybody who can paternally be traced back to the earliest male who lived in SA, that male is the SV for his line.
Since nobody can paternally be linked to his/her uncle, great uncle, gg uncle etc, it follows that brothers can be seperate Stamvaders.

Same argument applies to cousins, second cousins, third cousins etc regardless how many times removed.

The confusion arises from traditional genealogy where Biological Prog did not exist....we have created a dual system on GENi, We should no longer confuse Biological Progenitor with Family name Progenitor/Patriarch, We either differentiate the 2 systems clearly or we forever mix them together in a mishmash of confusion.

2 Brothers arriving without a father are each biological Progenitors (Biologiese stigters) (PROG)..(If they have living male descendants in a direct line they are (Y-PROG)
But only the eldest is the Family name Patriarch (Stamvader)... (SV/PROG) or in that special case (SV/Y-Prog)

This is a proposal to the original question, and my opinion... lets hear some more opinions........

I agree, there can only be one Family name Patriarch (Stamvader). The eldest brother.
The first to introduce the family name. If similtaneous introduction, the eldest male.

And another reason for making it all one system - the biological one.
If SM/V = biological PROG, everything is simplified.

So we lose the couple of SMs whose mothers came with them. Are they worth all the gedoente of the two systems they necessitate?

Personally I like having the dual system as I believe it enriches the profile to have a nomenclature that provides as much information about the person as possible.

Prog, Y-Prog, mtProg, SV/Prog, SV/Y-Prog, SM/Prog, SM/mtProg, SM, SV, ..

These all tell us different and interesting information about the person and their status as one of our "Stamouers"

This information, to me, is of way more importance, than advertising on my profile that I have a long DVN number linking me to a simple "Stamvader"