Remember that some of the ones posted here are not easy on purpose (grin!). Sometimes really simple ones are put up, but the intent to is to get people thinking. It's also for those who don't index or transcribe documents so that they can see other ways things get read and interpreted. Reading old writing is not as easy as people sometimes think it is.
Hi Michael, A day for comments! As Transcribers shouldn't we try to copy exactly what is written and not what we think, believe or even know what is intended? In the case yesterday I have examined the image of the Draft Registration for Levi and I cannot see any "u" in the second name - not even in the printed section at the top. What says you ?? Today. Focke Tjarks Fecht ??
I'm inclined to agree with you on yesterday's image as to what it "really" said. Transcribing should be what it "clearly" looks like and in yesterday's post, it really did look like "Lois" and not "Louis." Comments about what it's "supposed" to be, should be included in any comments section, in my opinion. And just before someone points it out, this situation is different from a "T" that looks like an "F" and one reads it as a "T" because that's what it was--sometimes a stray mark is a stray mark, but that's not the case on yesterday's image.
Focke Tjarks Fecht ? I have found the above comments most interesting and would suggest that any transcription should accurately reflect what was originally written -- be it a signature or a nineteenth century Will. It is not for us to try and second guess what the person should have written. Anyway I do enjoy your challenges -- thanks.
Focke Tarks Fecht
ReplyDeleteThese names can rob you of all your confidence as an indexer. Make me feel like I never get any right. But does make you try harder.
Focke Tjarks Fech_ - can't come up with the final letter (Or is it just a flourish and the surname is simply Fech?).
ReplyDeleteRemember that some of the ones posted here are not easy on purpose (grin!). Sometimes really simple ones are put up, but the intent to is to get people thinking. It's also for those who don't index or transcribe documents so that they can see other ways things get read and interpreted. Reading old writing is not as easy as people sometimes think it is.
ReplyDeleteHi Michael,
ReplyDeleteA day for comments! As Transcribers shouldn't we try to copy exactly what is written and not what we think, believe or even know what is intended? In the case yesterday I have examined the image of the Draft Registration for Levi and I cannot see any "u" in the second name - not even in the printed section at the top. What says you ??
Today.
Focke Tjarks Fecht ??
I'm inclined to agree with you on yesterday's image as to what it "really" said. Transcribing should be what it "clearly" looks like and in yesterday's post, it really did look like "Lois" and not "Louis." Comments about what it's "supposed" to be, should be included in any comments section, in my opinion. And just before someone points it out, this situation is different from a "T" that looks like an "F" and one reads it as a "T" because that's what it was--sometimes a stray mark is a stray mark, but that's not the case on yesterday's image.
ReplyDeleteFoeke Tjarks Feehl?
ReplyDeleteFoecke Tjarks Fechl
ReplyDeleteFocke Tjarks Fecht ?
ReplyDeleteI have found the above comments most interesting and would suggest that any transcription should accurately reflect what was originally written -- be it a signature or a nineteenth century Will. It is not for us to try and second guess what the person should have written.
Anyway I do enjoy your challenges -- thanks.
Foeke Tjarks Fecht
ReplyDeleteThis one is Focke Tjarks Fecht. The letter after the first "F" is an "o"--compare it to the letter after the "F" in the last name.
ReplyDelete