Re: Ether?
in reply to a message by Sabertooth
Most census takers in the 20th century were educated and therefore would spell a name in the most common form unless someone stated otherwise. For example, you would be hard pressed to find a Wilyam in the early 20th century, but in the 19th century you would find Willyam, Willieam, Willam, etc. because census takers would simply write how they thought it was spelled due to lack of education. That doesn't exlude that there were legitimate spelling variations such as Edythe, Edyth, and Edith.
But, foreign names are also misspelled quite frequently if the census taker was not of the culture he was taking a census from, and simply unaware of the names and would thus spell them phonetically or sometimes nowhere near phonetically due to language barriers. Hence also why many people have Americanized surnames after immigrating to the US. Petrovich changed to Peters, for example.
But, foreign names are also misspelled quite frequently if the census taker was not of the culture he was taking a census from, and simply unaware of the names and would thus spell them phonetically or sometimes nowhere near phonetically due to language barriers. Hence also why many people have Americanized surnames after immigrating to the US. Petrovich changed to Peters, for example.
Replies
The SSA data is all from Social Security applications, not censuses, isn't it? Am I missing something here? Maybe you mean the people who type in the SS applicant data.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/background.html
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/background.html
I thought so, but then someone told me it was compiled from census records which would then have human error and technological error involved.
Even though, not everyone at that time applied for a SS card, that point should rule out most supposed clerical errors.
Well, the data was surely read from a form and typed up, so clerical errors were probably common. My point was just that the education level of census-takers seems to be irrelevant. And the education level of anyone transcribing data is kind of irrelevant, since education does not make people less prone to typographical errors. Anyway I would guess it's likely that people have often spelled names the way they liked to, just as they do now, but now conventions for spelling the most common names are more crystallized than they were in the past.
So, the 19th century [less-]literates were only employed in the years:
1883,
1886,
1889,
1890,
1898,
1900,
1902,
1908 &
1910?
That is only a third of those years. Wouldn't clerical error [of Esther & Ethel] have been more persistent?
In that same time period, Ethel remained in the top 20 and Esther, in the top 100.
1883,
1886,
1889,
1890,
1898,
1900,
1902,
1908 &
1910?
That is only a third of those years. Wouldn't clerical error [of Esther & Ethel] have been more persistent?
In that same time period, Ethel remained in the top 20 and Esther, in the top 100.