When is a male Prog not an SV?

I loved Tombi Peck's opinion on Rootsweb:

"Hi Francois,
In my Skoolwoordeboek (Kritzingr & Steyn) there is a similar translation for
'stamvader' i.e. ancestor. It doesn't specify that it is the family Elder.
I think in South Africa it has been custom which has slightly changed the
meaning of stamvader to that which we all recognise.
Now that I've had the classification of the South African reference numbers
explained to me I find it rather untidy.....Why I hear you ask? If you take
just one line and use that to establish your reference number that is
O.K.....then comes the whammy...when you find ancestors who pre-date the
emigration to the Cape they don't have a reference number....
No-one has been able to explain to me to my satisfaction how one slots
oneself in (with reference numbers) when you have more than one family line
to follow
If I understand it correctly then I must use my father's line as my
reference ....that gives us just two in the line as my father was the first
on that side of the family to come to South Africa....what happens then to
all the magnificent history going back many hundreds of years that I've
managed (with the help of many distant cousins) ....this also applies to the
two other English family members who arrived in the Cape in the
1840s....both these lines go back at least two hundred years back in the
U.K.....
In my view EVERY family is as important as each other....I am descended from
5 completely separate 1820 Settler families, 1 Dutch family, and several
French Huguenot families plus two more English Immigrants who arrived after
1820 & my dad who first arrived in South Africa at the age of 11!
My genealogy programme provides some reference numbers (it seemed to get
bored with that some thousands of entries ago) so I completely ignore the
reference numbers!
Best wishes,
Tombi Peck"

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/SOUTH-AFRICA/2010-06/...

Trying to bring some humor into this... I was surprised that the 3rd word of the content by Mr Peck was spelled correctly! Cannot say much more for the following word.

It is definitely true that the world is a much larger place than we all thought when we all, and the people whom did this before us, started with genealogy. And the question (which one is the SV) that you pose is interesting, which I will deal with at a later stage as this is indeed good food for thought.

However, I cannot say more than what I said previously. It is not picking sides but one cannot afford to sit on the fence. Reread my very first post if you have to, and I am sorry that this is actually sounding like a language thing (or whatever you want to make of it - I really truly only mean this factually), but the accuracy of the Afrikaans tree is very much dependant on the use of DVN, which starts at the SV surname related part (although it still seems you don't understand this?). Messing with that will create true havoc!

Again it cannot serve more than one purpose, as I believe the DNA part is actually already handled internally through Geni. It actually is via Tree View... (i.e. we can discard the DNA/biological argument)

Having looked at thousands of RSA English trees, and really struggling with that information (totally different case if it is Afrikaans surnames), I am relatively sure the English never adopted our naming conventions (and therefore the duplicate names of 1-relation-off siblings - which is good and bad! :) ). So finally my conclusion = it is not anyone's place, whom are not Afrikaans or very much a believer of DVN on Geni, to make any comments on the relevancy thereof. I only hope you can respect it, as it is not meant to be contentious or exclusive, but factual.

Lets not allow opinions on DVNs in the suffix field derail this discussion.. I believe they are useful and have a place in SA genealogy.

We need to resolve whether SV remains as a cultural indicator of the family line/clan Patriach (Stamvader), (how we define it can be debated later...)

and PROG remains as indicator of Biological Progenitor (Biologiese Stigter)

Or do we go for a single system based on biological progenitor and call him Stamvader, doing this the wives of Stamvaders lose their status as Stammoeders, (as this is purely a cultural indicator)

I vote for the existing dual system as I believe it enriches the tree, but consider that it is, and probably will remain a uniquely GENi system..

http://www.cyndislist.com/numbering/general/

I know I am expelled from this discussion: Please allow me some more inputs.
As you will see from the above input there are a lot of Numbering systems in use. Our South
African (DVN) system seems to be the best. Our basis of SV and SM s plus their offspring,
thanks to the system is already in place and to go from there on wards without numbers, as you get new information is easy as pie because about 90% of your tree is numbered.

Ek dink nou aan die Suid Afrikaners in "diaspora" Om hulle geneologiesebande met Suid Afrika te behou en in die nuwe land voort te sit sal nou, om dit vir hulle nageslag makliker te maak hulle self iets begin noem . Hulle is nou die STAMVADERS/MOEDERS van hulle nageslag..
Wat gaan hulle, hul self noem:? (Mens noem nie jou Pa n PROGENITOR nie)

m

EK dink die oorspronklike besprekingspunt is nou afgehandel. en dit is tyd dat die hoofstuk afgesluit word..

Don, will you please redefine under a separate DISCUSSION what your aims are and what you want to achieve.

Work out the systems you want to introduce up to the finest details and then put the finished product on the table for discussion. It then can be studied, analyzed and discussed

As it is now we discuss three separate subjects simultaneously which leads to a lot of misunderstanding. . .
It will be interesting to see what you suggestions about the the DNA is. As it is now it serves no purpose or I don`t understand how to use it

Don, I think you want to retain the SMs who are not biological progenitors just so that you can design beautiful profile images for them :-)

Most of this Discussion I've been trying to argue for a logical way to keep the SMs because I didn't think people would want to lose them (because they see them as connected to the DVN) Hence all my emphasis on pointing out that the reason we're operating two different systems is just so that we can keep the SMs.
Then June argued that they weren't connected to the DVN, and that we should revert the SV to denoting a biological progenitor.
This, for me, is the simplest way to do it, and John Dinkelman and a couple of you agreed - although I'm never sure who is dis/agreeing because they grasp the actual issue, and who is doing it because they're trying to score points, and don't actually know what they're saying.

It bears repeating that the language factor that people keep trying to introduce as a divisive point, is a red herring. Some of us have half our family going back to the first English settlers, and half our family going back to the first Afrikaner settlers. All naming systems affect those people's trees too. (I am one of them). It has nothing whatsover to do with the fact that SV/SM are Afrikaans words and PROG English words.Nothing at all.

If we maintain the meaning of the labels on geni that has SMs as wives and not necessarilly biological progenitors - then we need to retain the two category system where:
PROG = biological progenitor of both genders
SV = cultural (surname) progenitor and SM = his wife/partner (a cultural category)
Mostly, people will be both SV/PROG and SM/PROG

The few exceptions is what this Discussion is trying to address:
-My initial point that a (biological) PROG who only has daughters, doesn't produce a surname line, and so is not an SV, falls away if we decide that anybody with children has produced a surname descent line.
I'm on record as saying that I think this makes a mockery of the definition of a surname descent line; and it seems to me that some people are so used to assuming that SV on geni means biological (without realising that the non-biological SMs make this impossible), that this fact just doesn't dawn on them.
So, if we accept that no logical conversation about the actual problem here is going to ensue - then lets just take it that you're an SV if you have one child, regardless of whether that child passes on your surname.

-This leaves the question of whether this definition of 'only one child necessary' should pertain to PROGs as well.

Certainly, as Don points out, it can't apply to special categories of PROGs - those who are our Y-PROGs and mtDNAProgs. This is simply because we find them by tracking back to them from living descendants.

I would argue that more than one generation is required before the settler is called a PROG. (Although we may want to conform to the SV definition of the minimum necessity being one child only.)
But then the question of how many generations and whether the person has to have descendants in the modern era (as is actually defined in the project) remains to be answered.

I would think that only one child is necessary to pass on genes and thereby be a biological progenitor...

I am having second thoughts on the Stamvader requirements though... I'm tending to agree with Sharon that if "Stam" means "family line" or "clan" a SV needs to be patriarch of more than one generation, one generation is merely a simple family not a "stam"

I therefore propose to have the status of "SV" on GENi he needs to patriach of a family line or stam of at least 2 generations of issue that carry his surname... ) (First generation "b generation" would therefore need to include males who themselves had issue, "c generation" and who also carried the same surname... male or female....(after 1800 some/most of those females would have changed their name eventually when married, which need not affect our SV's status. )

So an SV needs to have grandchildren with his Surname?

I'd suggest it might be simpler to make a PROG someone who has at least got grandchildren too, then?

There is no reason, in my mind that cultural definitions should drive the biological definition, besides the more similar we make SV and PROG the less reason there is to have any difference..

I think that the SMs are the only reason we have a difference.

*When is a male ‘’’PROG’’’ but not a ‘’’SV’’’?

**If the PROG had descendants but he did not produce a family line /clan (Stam), ie. he did not have sons who also had issue.
**If the PROG had issue out of wedlock and those descendants did not take his surname.
**If the PROG's descendants were given up for adoption.
**If the PROGs elder brother had issue too... then the elder brother is the clan (Stam) Stamvader (SV)

:-) Point taken.

So, we've had this discussion for long enough for everybody to be aware of it.

I'm going to update the SV/Prog project definition, to say that SVs should have grandchildren with their surname.

Don't agree with the arbitrary view that poses a limit of 2 generations, don't agree with biological definition.

Think there is room to discuss 'how far back'. For example, if the Strydom surname, of what we thought was SVs but were in fact related, i.e. carries a common male ancestor, then in my opinion that would be the SV once proven.

That said, I am still of opinion that the only thing of importance is that we do not change the SV definition (for South Africa) in order to protect the accuracy of the tree via the use of DVN.

Jan why don't you agree with the 2 generation rule, do you think it should be 1,3 or more?

What don't you agree with the biological definition? Don't you think it should exist or do you think the definition is faulty?

I agree if we find a common ancestor, then he becomes the SV.

Nothing we have discussed here will change the DVN numbers .... if we accept the "a" generation is the PROG, the biological progenitor.

I started a project to aid this discussion...

https://www.geni.com/projects/Stamouer-Status-Tag-SV-PROG-etc/38677

At this stage of the Discussion - and to prevent it going around in circles - please engage with reasons.

=the only thing of importance is that we do not change the SV definition (for South Africa) in order to protect the accuracy of the tree via the use of DVN.=
THe DVN is not an issue in this discussion. We are not talking about doing away with the SVs at all. It is irrelevant to keep bringing the DVN up. This Discussion will not affect the DVN in suffix, whatever the outcome.

=Don't agree with the arbitrary view that poses a limit of 2 generations=
The 2 generation isn't a limit. It's a minimum. It isn't arbitrary - as we have discussed, it is the minimum number that can be used to distinguish definition of a a stam from that of a familie.

=don't agree with biological definition=
I take it you mean that you don't agree that there should be a biological category separate from the SV category at all?

As I have said repeatedly, the reason we're deliberately not using SV to denote a biological progenitor is because that automatically means the SMs have to denote a biological ancestor as well, and we would lose any of the SMs who are not the eldest biological mother. If you disagree with this, please make your disagreement engage with the logic of that problem.

Cross posted with Don. Thankyou, that project is helpful.

The project helps clarify the labels. Thank-you Don. The graphics help too!

I think translating the definitions into Afrikaans will help debunk the complexity of it all and hopefully bring everyone up to speed.

Don, would you like to translate or can I?

Please go ahead Alex...Thanks!

I kept the format the same and translated the relevant definitions.
Please feel free to edit as the need arises.

=Die Stamvader moet die stigter van 'n familienaam in SA wees. bv. 'n oupa-grootjie wie se afstammelinge sy familienaam ge-erf het.=
should probably read
Die Stamvader moet die stigter van 'n familienaam in SA wees. bv. 'n oupa wie se afstammelinge sy familienaam ge-erf het.

I would think that being born in SA must somehow have a weighting in the determining of SV eg
A grandfather arriving with his son and grandson (and possibly no further male offspring) now immediately qualifies as SV but a widow arriving and her son born in SA and he subsequently has a number of sons born here, that son does not qualify?

=I know I am expelled from this discussion=
@Martin Karl Andreas Potgieter nobody is "expelled" from a discussion purely because he holds different views on a subject

Martin Andreas Karl (Dries) Potgieter ... you are welcome to follow the link below and make suggestions related to the information provided. https://www.geni.com/projects/Stamouer-Status-Tag-SV-PROG-etc/38677

Thank-you

@Daan
Why would the "son born in SA and he subsequently has a number of sons born here" not qualify" - did none of his sons have children?

If his sons did not have children he still qualifies as a PROG...

Dries was asked to stop using this and other Discussions to settle personal grudges. At the very least this derails the Discussion from discussing the logical points. At the most it fuels others to join in with the divisive behaviour.

The emotional blackmail involved in "I know I am expelled from this discussion" isn't worthy of a response, as quite patently Dries is not being prevented from commenting on the logical development of the points at hand.

Should this kind of bitchiness continue, I will recommend that we take all the people involved to a separate message thread with Geni, to ascertain the degree to which differing points of view on the topic at hand are actually being excluded.

=I would think that being born in SA must somehow have a weighting in the determining of SV eg A grandfather arriving with his son and grandson (and possibly no further male offspring) now immediately qualifies as SV but a widow arriving and her son born in SA and he subsequently has a number of sons born here, that son does not qualify?=

The widow's son is the oldest male PROG, and the oldest male surname holder. He is an SV/Prog.

It isn't clear what this question has to do with being born in SA though? Most male SVs & Progs are first settlers and so not born in this country. That's the point.