| AutomatedGenealogy.com http://192.168.88.137:81/phpBB3/ |
|
| Soeur et Belle-soeur http://192.168.88.137:81/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6027 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | mcmichel [ Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Soeur et Belle-soeur |
Hello, For a transcription in French, the drop down menu for the relationship column offers "Sœur" and 'Belle-sœur' as a translation for "Sister" and "Sister-in-law". If you notice, the translation proposed shows a contraction of the letters "o" and "e", which is displayed through a special character. The translation should preferably be modified as "Soeur" and "Belle-soeur", which represents the writings as is. See for example line 29: http://automatedgenealogy.com/census11/ ... anada+page This remark stands as well for the transcription of surnames like Jolicoeur, Francoeur, and others, where the contraction should be prohibited. Michel Dubois Quebec city. |
|
| Author: | Mark Gallop [ Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Soeur et Belle-soeur |
Hi Michel - I just checked our Collins Robert French-English dictionary and it provides "sœur" as the proper translation for "sister". When the French facilities for AG were first being set up, there was a collaborative discussion (on the old message board so no longer accessible) about the optimal translations for the drop-downs and sœur, etc. was provided by Francophone volunteers. Is this a case where œ wasn't used a century ago but is now, or vice versa? Given that there is no search facility by relationship, does it really matter? (It would matter if œ was used in transcription of surnames but I checked for Jolicœur and Francœur in both 1901 and 1911 and couldn't find any.) Thanks. Mark |
|
| Author: | mcmichel [ Sat Oct 03, 2015 7:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Soeur et Belle-soeur |
Hello Mark, Thanks for your remarks which are very relevant. I agree with all those. My proposal just intended to support more coherence between the written habits for the words "soeur" and the "oe" in the surnames. Besides, the dropdown menu in 1901 doesn't provide a reference to the "sister-in-law". See the following on line 22: http://automatedgenealogy.com/census/Vi ... %29+QUEBEC So, the transcriber wrote "Belle-soeur", as is. And, it's not that easy for anyone to find and write the special character for the contracted "oe", unless you copy and paste. Michel. |
|
| Author: | Mark Gallop [ Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Soeur et Belle-soeur |
Hi Michel - Don't forget that if the relationship isn't in a drop-down, the best-practice is to transcribe as written and in the case you point to it is "Belle Soeur", not "Sister in Law". Fortunately the transcriber didn't use the œ nor does the original image appear to show it written that way in this case. Thanks. Mark |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|