When is a male Prog not an SV?

I will have to respond with a linked document that explains better, as it is too difficult to do so on this platform in an orderly fashion.

=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.=

Could you please elaborate, because:

1. If there is a SV with more than one wife, then all wives with children by that SV are SMs... Where do we lose them?

2. If we don't have biological qualifying ancestry of any qualifying SM, then she is either a SM or a SM/Prog. Why do you say otherwise?

Female (PROG) Biological Progenitor – Biologiese Stigter = Vroulike (PROG) Biologiese Stigter

The oldest known, most senior female to arrive in South Africa and to pass on her genes
Die eerste (en mees volwasse) vrou in SA wat haar gene (spesifieke mtDNS groep) aan haar afstammelinge oorgedra het.

She is often NOT the wife of the SV or mother of the SV's children..

2 examples:

Unknown Profile
Anne des Ruelle

Neither are married to SVs

And then:

Anna Maria Saayman, c3d1 SM is married to a SV, but she is not a PROG

I was not referring to PROGs, but to SMs, as in:

=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.=

And alternatively, if there is no SV there is also no SM, that must be clear agree. (and yes, there could then be a PROG)

But please elaborate on 1. and 2.

I think we are looking at the problem from the wrong angles (being separate angles). The problem can perhaps easily be solved when we look at all the combinations that are possible (and admitting that nothing is impossible, that we need flexibility). I think you would understand my conclusions better afterwards.

Below: x=nothing (of Sx, PROG or Sx/PROG), males are first, using the existing meanings of the words (that can easily be replaced with others)

Combinations:

SV/PROG-SM/PROG = both progs coming here together, building stam together

SV/PROG-PROG = a SV/PROG marrying a from overseas female prog but they have no children together in his stam with the PROG (this therefore only possible if he has another stam)

SV/PROG-SM = a SV/PROG and a local born female of another stam in RSA, they have stam

SV/PROG-x = a SV/PROG marrying female but not having stam with her
SV-SM/PROG = a younger brother of a sv/prog and a non-local prog female building a stam together

SV-PROG = a younger brother of a sv/prog marrying a non-local prog where she has no stam in any of her relationships

SV-SM = a younger brother of a sv/prog marrying a female of another stam, they building stam together

SV-x = a younger brother of a sv/prog not building a stam with this female

x-SM/PROG = a local male of a stam, marrying some other stam’s SM/PROG

x-PROG = a local male part of an existing stam, marries a female prog, (however, do they need a stam for her to be PROG or must she be PROG of another stam)?

x-SM = a local marrying some other stam’s SM

x-x = run of the mill business

Propose that we rank Sx/PROG above PROG above Sx.

Conclusions:

I think it will be unfair to place a LOWER limit of 2 on the male, but effectively NO limit on the female  Easiest should be that once there is a child, a legacy was left, which may or may not be in tact today or in future for that matter.

Also, the definition of stam above unfortunately therefore cannot mean both a male and female version (then all the defs are bogus), needs to be surname (traditionally male) only I would guess, and prefer.

So yes, for males there would be a distinction between SV/PROG and SV (being the oldest), but it has other meaning when distinguishing between SM/PROG and SM. I think what Sharon says is that SM and PROG must be exchanged for the English?

In either case, I suggest that we don’t use PROG for both males and females… and there is perhaps room for another female version of SV that will be equal to the male version, i.e. a younger sister?

That will be my contribution for now, instead of a long document, and what I said previously.

Oh and...

PROG-SM/PROG = a non-local male marying a non-local prog female that has a stam with another man, but not this one

PROG-PROG = a non-local male marrying a non-local female where both have no stams here

PROG-SM = a non-local male marrying a female of another stam, they have no stam together

PROG-x = non-local male marrying a female of RSA stam, not building a stam with this female

Yes there are many combinations, the combination does drive the individuals status, except in the case of a cultural classification of Stammoeder, (Clan Matriach)

Let us deal with the younger brother of a Stamvader... (If we accept that the Clan/Stam can have only one cultural Patriach)

He is still progenitor of his family lines DNA..... and in the special case when he is the last or pinnacle of the tree (South African) to carry Y-DNA of any living male descendant he is Y-PROG.....

Jan, do you agree?

I do not know what that chart is aimed at proving.
-That there are many combinations of possible life circumstances?
Yes. That's why it's important to have coherent constructs underlying our labels.

-That you've found a circumstance we have on geni that the SV/M & Prog system doesn't cover?
I don't see it.

=nothing is impossible, that we need flexibility=
This is not true. If the label constructs can apply to anything - then they are useless to us. Anybody could label any profile they felt like SV etc if that were true.
eg Most obviously the situation in which you want to use SV to mean eldest male biological settler, but you want its partner construct, SM, to mean his wife, not eldest biological female settler. The lack of coherency in this is why you guys keep getting confused about what label can logically apply. And why you think if you can generate enough options one won't fit.

Don't believe 'you guys' are confused at all, would really appreciate if you can make 'the construct' better, with suggestions et al.

What happens when a SM/PROG remarries after the death of her husband (who was SV/PROG) with whom she had children with and then has children with the second husband who may be from the b or c generation of a different surname.

Does she lose her SM/PROG suffix? or do we combine them?

If one were looking at her tree from the point of view of the first marriage, the suffix would be correct.
If one were looking at her tree from the point of view of the second marriage the suffix SM/PROG would be incorrect.

If we combine them, do we combine them as follows:
[SM/PROG],[]
Where the first set of square brackets refers to 1st marriage and the 2nd set refers to the second marriage

Sounds like we are weaving a confusing tangled web...

If she's an SM to one Stam Vader's stam, then she doesn't lose that if she remarries another man who isn't a SV.

Yes, I would prefer us to stick with biological only, because it is simpler. But I understand that there are people who don't want to lose the SMs, so here we are.

My SM meets the scenarion that Jan Blomerus mentions:

"SV/PROG-SM = a SV/PROG and a local born female of another stam in RSA, they have stam"

Catharina Susanna Reid, b2 SM

She was born in Swellendam and married my great great grandfather (from Scotland)

I made her suffix b2 SM because she was the second born of the b generation and SM to my surname. So I can easily see where she fits into her parents tree and my 2xg gf's tree. I put the b2 before the SM because she was b2 before she became SM.

The 'constructs' used to label our founding settlers are:
1. Eldest male & female of a Biological Line and
2. Eldest male of a Surname Line and his wife

They really can't be modified / made better without losing their meaning.
Either you have them as is, or you discard them entirely, but what other constructs would you suggest describe founding settler?

Douglas James Reid, b1c5d3e1
The two questions to ask are simply this:
1. Is she the oldest biological female settler?
-No. So she's not a PROG
2. Is she married to an SV?
-Yes. So she is an SM

As you say, above.

I Think it not worth wile to respond to Sharon`s tirade. We were the best of friends till I oppose her. ( Bringing to her attention her change of mind from a previous discussion about the DVN system.)

I will detach myself from this discussion.

Dries Sharon has not changed her mind, she still opposes the DVN in the Suffix field just as I do... However we both appreciate that the DVN plays an important role in SA genealogy... all of which is irrelevant and a diversion to attaining resolution to this discussion.

I think it is important to stress that we are not trying to change or introduce anything new in this discussion. ... we are merely trying to clear the confusion around the existing system.

My opinion on Douglas question on whether a SM loses her status as stammoeder if the remarries... I would suggest yes she does... its a cultural tag and she loses it as soon as she takes a new husband.(if the new husband himself is not a SV) .. if she was a PROG, she cannot lose that tag as it is a biological indicator.
.

We should however note in the "About" that she was Stammoeder during her first marriage.

=The widow's son is the oldest male PROG, and the oldest male surname holder. He is an SV/Prog.=
I hold se same view but he does not qualify as SV according to the laid down/proposed “SVs should have grandchildren with their surname”

=It isn't clear what this question has to do with being born in SA though?=
The point I am making is that in the above case 2 generations of name carriers were born in a country and have contributed to the establishment of a family line and according to the definition is not a SV
In contrast to
A grandfather + son + grandson arriving here and at that stage contributed nil issue borned in a country already qualifies as SV

We must however revisit the concept of “male surname holder” because the definition must hold for any conceivable exception eg the unmarried female arriving having only daughter(s) with unidentified fathers and the same situation perpetuating for n generations

@Douglas she remains SM for the REID line (as confirmed by Sharon) and would beallocated another SM for marriage with another SV/Prog xxx and would not be allocated another SM for marrying with a bi line. One will always have to inspect for which lines she is SM or not.
One will have to note in about for which name(s) she is SM
So once a SM for a line, always a SM for that line and nothing can sever that.

[ same situation for a female PROG where she is married to a SV(s) or first generations. She keep her SM/PROG status for all the family names where she was married to SVs and only PROG to the non SV family lines]

Its a cultural question.... If the Botha SV divorces his wife and both remarry. He has children with both wives.... There is now a Botha family function. Who is Stammoeder?

=but a widow arriving and her son born in SA and he subsequently has a number of sons born here= you said nothing about his sons not having children.

Don, the SM label is an indicator for us - not a title the woman herself carried and lost when she remarried - like Duchess, for eg. (This is why people on the world tree complain about it)
So, from our point of view, the indicator of the fact that she is also the matriarch of a surname line, remains useful.

The Botha SV can have two matriarchs of different children on his surname line.

=same situation for a female PROG where she is married to a SV(s) or first generations. She keep her SM/PROG status for all the family names where she was married to SVs and only PROG to the non SV family lines=
PROG has absolutely nothing to do with it. PROG doesn't reference her husband at all. If she's the eldest biological female settler of a line, she's the PROG. Her cultural marriages are completely irrelevant to the construct. This is why you keep getting confused about the labels. You keep thinking of the female PROG category as somehow related to the male one. It isn't. Whether you are the eldest female progenitor of a line does not reference in any way who you were married to.
You're either the apex female settler, or you aren't.
It's a simple yes or no question.

=We must however revisit the concept of “male surname holder” because the definition must hold for any conceivable exception eg the unmarried female arriving having only daughter(s) with unidentified fathers and the same situation perpetuating for n generatIons=
Again, not complex if you think from the point of view of the underlying constructs. If there is no surname line then the cultural aspect is irrelevant. There is no stam to be SM of. She is not an SM.
is she the eldest female biological settler? Yes.
She's a PROG.

=The Botha SV can have two matriarchs of different children on his surname line.=

@Sharon, I'm happy with that SM definition...

(It is not the cultural status at death but cultural status held at some point in life.)

To avoid confusion in tree view we could add the surname in these cases? eg. Mary Botha [SM-Visser/SM-Botha] or something like Douglas has suggested.. [SM/SM]

Does this second wife have Botha SM status if she does not have children with Mr Botha?

=Does this second wife have Botha SM status if she does not have children with Mr Botha?=
No, she doesn't, because there's no surname line she's moeder of- but putting that rare exception into the rule of thumb question of: 'is she married to the SV?" - about which people are so easily confused already - seems to be asking for another 8 pages of discussion about the same thing. I would suggest we put it in the exceptions section on the SV/PROG project.

=To avoid confusion in tree view we could add the surname in these cases? eg. Mary Botha [SM-Visser/SM-Botha] or something like Douglas has suggested.. [SM/SM]=
We could add the surname, but it's stuffing a lot into the prefix - for something you can see just by looking at the label on the husbands on her profile, in my opinion.
This [SM/SM] label is asking for confusion in my mind. Occam's razor is the way to go, if this Discussion is anything to go by.