Alphabetizing surnames--time for a change?
Jun 27, 2020 1:15:37 GMT -8
Post by Uncle Buddy on Jun 27, 2020 1:15:37 GMT -8
EDIT: This rant was largely retracted in the post below it...
I haven't spent much time thinking about this, but I've seen strong opinions from good people on both sides.
Does Dick van Dyke's surname start with a v or a D? How should it be alphabetized?
Traditionally, it seems the right way is to enter the surname as "van Dyke" but alphabetize it under D.
But the modern way in English is to alphabetize surnames the way a computer would do it if you told the computer the surname was "van Dyke" (which is correct) and didn't add a bunch of code to complicate the issue. Now that we are using computers and not index cards, it's no longer just as easy either way. It's a lot harder to alphabetize the name by "D" if the surname starts with a "v".
But how hard it is to make the code work is not the issue. The issue for me is that I'm not writing a program for Dutch genealogists. In the Dutch tradition, it's correct to alphabetize a name like this under "D". In English this tradition is passing. I say let it pass.
Then there are those who argue that a name should be alphabetized by the prefix if people tend to say it that way (no one says "Dyke" if referring to Dick van Dyke by his last name), but if people tend to say the surname without the prefix, (the way Americans say "Beethoven" for Ludwig von Beethoven), then it should be alphabetized by the main part of the surname and not the prefix. This doesn't make sense if you think about it. For one thing, Ludwig's countrymen probably said the whole name whenever referring to him by his last name. I'm just guessing. The point is that from one country to another, the tradition will be different.
To me the part that matters is consistency, and if you want consistency there has to be one simple rule that works for everything. Capitalize surnames letter by letter, ignoring spaces, apostrophes, etc. This is how Treebard will do it. It's how all modern bibliographers do it in the English language. If you have to know the national origin of the name and research how it's done in that country, then you should rightfully have to write a letter to the person who wrote the reference you're adding to the bibliography and ask him if he's an American or whether his grandparents were immigrants and from what country... get it? Having more than one rule is wrong.
If I was Dutch I'd probably swing the other way, but trying to write code that will alphabetize names properly can be straightforward. The more exceptions are made to the "one simple rule" guideline, the more people are not gonna find the name when looking for it. Which is contrary to the purpose of alphabetizing things. So why not make it straightforward? Traditions change and computers are changing traditions. Writing complex code on purpose to try and freeze time in the age of typewriters and index cards doesn't seem like a good idea.
I haven't spent much time thinking about this, but I've seen strong opinions from good people on both sides.
Does Dick van Dyke's surname start with a v or a D? How should it be alphabetized?
Traditionally, it seems the right way is to enter the surname as "van Dyke" but alphabetize it under D.
But the modern way in English is to alphabetize surnames the way a computer would do it if you told the computer the surname was "van Dyke" (which is correct) and didn't add a bunch of code to complicate the issue. Now that we are using computers and not index cards, it's no longer just as easy either way. It's a lot harder to alphabetize the name by "D" if the surname starts with a "v".
But how hard it is to make the code work is not the issue. The issue for me is that I'm not writing a program for Dutch genealogists. In the Dutch tradition, it's correct to alphabetize a name like this under "D". In English this tradition is passing. I say let it pass.
Then there are those who argue that a name should be alphabetized by the prefix if people tend to say it that way (no one says "Dyke" if referring to Dick van Dyke by his last name), but if people tend to say the surname without the prefix, (the way Americans say "Beethoven" for Ludwig von Beethoven), then it should be alphabetized by the main part of the surname and not the prefix. This doesn't make sense if you think about it. For one thing, Ludwig's countrymen probably said the whole name whenever referring to him by his last name. I'm just guessing. The point is that from one country to another, the tradition will be different.
To me the part that matters is consistency, and if you want consistency there has to be one simple rule that works for everything. Capitalize surnames letter by letter, ignoring spaces, apostrophes, etc. This is how Treebard will do it. It's how all modern bibliographers do it in the English language. If you have to know the national origin of the name and research how it's done in that country, then you should rightfully have to write a letter to the person who wrote the reference you're adding to the bibliography and ask him if he's an American or whether his grandparents were immigrants and from what country... get it? Having more than one rule is wrong.
If I was Dutch I'd probably swing the other way, but trying to write code that will alphabetize names properly can be straightforward. The more exceptions are made to the "one simple rule" guideline, the more people are not gonna find the name when looking for it. Which is contrary to the purpose of alphabetizing things. So why not make it straightforward? Traditions change and computers are changing traditions. Writing complex code on purpose to try and freeze time in the age of typewriters and index cards doesn't seem like a good idea.