RootsChat.Com

General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Annette Witherby on Tuesday 02 January 18 04:44 GMT (UK)

Title: 33 generation tree
Post by: Annette Witherby on Tuesday 02 January 18 04:44 GMT (UK)
Are there any suggestions as to where to begin a tree full of 33 generations dating back to the Vikings.
I feel looking at a tree gives you more idea of the overall result.
I am proud of myself but I am determined to have a tree of some sort.
Any help appreciated.
Annette
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: jim1 on Tuesday 02 January 18 11:52 GMT (UK)
Not sure what you're asking.
Are you saying you have a tree containing 33 generations & you want to print it out ?
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Vance Mead on Tuesday 02 January 18 11:56 GMT (UK)
I was unsure about that too. An application like Family Tree Maker enables you to make and print out a family tree with any amount of generations you like. But a full family tree with 33 generations would contain about ten billion names.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Ruskie on Tuesday 02 January 18 12:57 GMT (UK)
I'm confused too.
 
You initially ask where to begin a tree.

Then you say you are "determined to have a tree."

But you also seem to be claiming to have researched 33 generations, in which case don't you already have a tree?  :-\

I think "looking at a tree" of 33 generations is going to be confusing and complicated no matter how you present it if that is what you are asking. I think many (or most) of us struggle to get to thirteen generations let alone 33 so I can't imagine what a 33 generations tree might look like.  :-X

Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: youngtug on Tuesday 02 January 18 13:17 GMT (UK)
I don't think it is possible to have a 33 generation tree of European descent but a tree of 33 generations or more could be like this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_Confucius_in_the_main_line_of_descent
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Vance Mead on Tuesday 02 January 18 13:22 GMT (UK)
Quote from: Ruskie on Tuesday 02 January 18 12:57 GMT (UK)
I can't imagine what a 33 generations tree might look like.  :-X

A 33 generation tree, if you had all of the ancestors in generation number 33, would have about eight billion names in the earliest generation. Even if you printed it very small, it would be four feet wide and 10,000 miles long.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: rosie99 on Tuesday 02 January 18 13:22 GMT (UK)
I am impressed that you have 33 generations.  Have you seen all of the original documentation that took you back that far    :)
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: jim1 on Tuesday 02 January 18 13:33 GMT (UK)
Getting a bit off topic I think.
The poster just wants a tree.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: rosie99 on Tuesday 02 January 18 13:36 GMT (UK)
There is a topic here about a 15 generation tree with suggestions that may help
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=693417.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: rosie99 on Tuesday 02 January 18 14:07 GMT (UK)
Quote from: jim1 on Tuesday 02 January 18 13:33 GMT (UK)
Getting a bit off topic I think.

I was interested as I would not know where to start once I had got back to the 1700's  1600's :)
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: bitzar on Tuesday 02 January 18 14:08 GMT (UK)
Hi Annette

I find your post very interesting.  Someone who I am supposedly related to is claiming he can trace our tree back to the Viking's and even further and naming some VERY big names in history!!!

I thought I'd try to mimic the tree and prove it, but I cant even get back past the 1600's.  Any tips on where to begin.

Regards,

bitzar.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: lizdb on Tuesday 02 January 18 14:17 GMT (UK)
Quote from: Ruskie on Tuesday 02 January 18 12:57 GMT (UK)

You initially ask where to begin a tree.

Then you say you are "determined to have a tree."

But you also seem to be claiming to have researched 33 generations, in which case don't you already have a tree?  :-\


My thought process couldn't get beyond this sequence either!
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Erato on Tuesday 02 January 18 14:40 GMT (UK)
Someone right here on RootsChat offered to connect me and my tree, step by step, all the way back to Noah - say, 180 generations.  Unfortunately, though, I couldn't take him/her up on this fabulous [in more ways than one] offer due to a vexing unresolved illegitimacy issue in 1869 which prevented me from reliably connecting myself to the main trunk.  So it goes.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Andrew Tarr on Tuesday 02 January 18 14:46 GMT (UK)
In view of the original unclear request, might it be an idea to start at the top of the tree and work downwards, to find out if you could end up at yourself - as it were?   ;)
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: davidft on Tuesday 02 January 18 15:28 GMT (UK)
Quote from: Annette Witherby on Tuesday 02 January 18 04:44 GMT (UK)
Are there any suggestions as to where to begin a tree full of 33 generations dating back to the Vikings.
I feel looking at a tree gives you more idea of the overall result.
I am proud of myself but I am determined to have a tree of some sort.
Any help appreciated.
Annette

As you can tell from the replies your queation has caused some confusion. However yes it is possible to have a 33 generation tree, for example my 32nd great grandfather is William I. Needless to say when youy get that far back finding evidence can be very difficult and thus back then you have very few lines. If your question is how do you start a 33 generation then the old genealogical advice of start with yourself and work back generation by generation with "reliable" sources. Obviouly in some case, many cases?, the sources get lost and so toy cannot progress those lines.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: ThrelfallYorky on Tuesday 02 January 18 15:34 GMT (UK)
We all usually start with ourselves, and work back down the generations - that's the safest way, isn't it? And because we don't make wild guesses, or slide dates and relationships to fit, that's probably why so few of us can get back beyond 1650s, or relate to famous names!
I assume that Annette is a fantastic and diligent researcher, very well-connected family, and with a huge pile of well-researched material, and wants to draw something worth putting on display (on a very large wall?) - but not all those fancy nobility and royal trees are all they're made out to be. Many an ancestor has been slipped from one side of a blanket to another, to clean up a claim!
I drew my far more humble mob all out by hand, in fine line pencil first, then with a fine line pen, two colours only - red for direct, black for the rest - and a ruler - and several very carefully joined large sheets of paper just for the mob I've got, and the very earliest anywhere there is 1580! Interesting large roll to store though! Can't imagine a longer trail back being at all easy.
Andrew Tarr - what do you think are the chances the OP would end up with themselves at the end?
Erato: are you any good at building Arks? It might run in the family. It's rained enough today here that we could do with one, please!
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: rosie99 on Tuesday 02 January 18 15:40 GMT (UK)
Quote from: lizdb on Tuesday 02 January 18 14:17 GMT (UK)
Quote from: Ruskie on Tuesday 02 January 18 12:57 GMT (UK)

You initially ask where to begin a tree.

Then you say you are "determined to have a tree."

But you also seem to be claiming to have researched 33 generations, in which case don't you already have a tree?  :-\


My thought process couldn't get beyond this sequence either!

I assumed that as Annette had been on rootschat since 2004 that their tree was well established and not just beginning  :-\
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Guy Etchells on Tuesday 02 January 18 16:17 GMT (UK)
Actually this is interesting as a 33 Generation tree may not go back as far as some might think.

A tree descending through mother’s male lineage stating in circa 1450 is 13 generations to my grandchildren, however a tree from my male lineage starting in 1410 to my grandchildren is 21 generations.
Only 40 years between two people living at the same time yet a difference of 7 generations in the trees.
Some families have children earlier than other families.

Incidentally a basic lineage chart of the first family mentioned (my mother’s) can be printed on one A2 (16.5 x 23.4 inches) sheet of paper.

Both of these trees only display the main family line including children of each generation.
Often called a pedigree chart.

Cheers
Guy
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Finley 1 on Tuesday 02 January 18 16:23 GMT (UK)
I used to use PAF file that can print out trees...

its a heck of a lot of work adding 33 gens to any ged to enable the production of a tree.

xin
I have a twig ... if you stick it in the ground it may root, but then it may not.  Sometimes I look at the trees and see the tangled web of branches and wonder.
Then I sit and concentrate on that one delicate branch and follow it all the way to the top, but then it is so delicate that it often snaps.. breaks or twists..

Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Erato on Tuesday 02 January 18 16:52 GMT (UK)
"A tree descending through mother’s male lineage stating in circa 1450 is 13 generations to my grandchildren"

That gives a generation time of about 43 years - not impossible but certainly extremely long.

Many years ago, when I took a population statistics course, average human generation time was considered to be 28.5 years.  That means, using definition #2 [difference in age between parent and offspring], that the average child is born when its mother is 28.5 years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_time
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: KGarrad on Tuesday 02 January 18 17:12 GMT (UK)
My tree goes back to 1540/1550 - 16 generations on paternal line; 18 generations on maternal line.

As a reference point, the Vikings ruled the Isle of Man from 1079 (Godred Crovan) until 1265 (Magnus Olafsson). So, Vikings aren't very far back ;D
(The Isle of Man is where I live!)
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Rena on Tuesday 02 January 18 17:17 GMT (UK)
Quote from: Erato on Tuesday 02 January 18 16:52 GMT (UK)
Many years ago, when I took a population statistics course, average human generation time was considered to be 28.5 years.  That means, using definition #2 [difference in age between parent and offspring], that the average child is born when its mother is 28.5 years old.


Circa 1948 and I was a youngster in a classroom of 39 pupils learning about graphs and averages.  We were told there were three generations per century.  The lesson regarding averages required us each to give the age of our mothers when they married and I thought about lying about my mother's age because she was absolutely ancient compared to the other ages being quoted.  My mother married the month after her 20th birthday, whereas most of my classmates mothers married when they were eighteen years old.  :)
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: lizdb on Tuesday 02 January 18 17:32 GMT (UK)
Rena, that reminds me of when I was about 8, and had a conversation with my little friends about how old our mums were.   My mum was 33 when she had me, so she had by then turned 40. My friends' mums had had them whilst aged 20/21 ish, so were still in their 20's!   
I felt as if my mum was absolutely ancient.

(Sorry, off topic!)
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: jim1 on Tuesday 02 January 18 17:33 GMT (UK)
Looking at one of my charts a 33 gen. tree would be roughly 6' x 18' long.
Laterally mine stops C.1400 & then goes up.
Depending on when you get onto the greasy pole of Nobility you might be looking at a tree 30' long.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: rosie99 on Tuesday 02 January 18 17:59 GMT (UK)
Quote from: jim1 on Tuesday 02 January 18 17:33 GMT (UK)
Depending on when you get onto the greasy pole of Nobility you might be looking at a tree 30' long.

You would need to live in a Mansion to hang it on the wall  :)


Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Guy Etchells on Tuesday 02 January 18 18:55 GMT (UK)
Quote from: jim1 on Tuesday 02 January 18 17:33 GMT (UK)
Looking at one of my charts a 33 gen. tree would be roughly 6' x 18' long.
Laterally mine stops C.1400 & then goes up.
Depending on when you get onto the greasy pole of Nobility you might be looking at a tree 30' long.

I suggest your calculations are out somewhat.
My full tree held on 3 maximum size 200 inch pdf files if printed would be 50 feet wide not sure of the height, but that is not really a concern as it is the width for the generations to fit side by side that is the controlling factor.
I have an outbuilding with three walls with no doors or windows in them that could display the tree if I ever got it printed but I don't really think it justifies the cost when I can display it on my computer monitor.

Cheers
Guy
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Andrew Tarr on Tuesday 02 January 18 23:28 GMT (UK)
The intriguing mathematical point is that (as has been pointed out) going back 10 generations leads to 1024 ancestors; another ten should lead to just over a million.  Using the suggested average period of 28.5 years per generation, that is 570 years, or around 1450 AD.  The population of the British Isles then was only a few million.  So even allowing for possible ancestors from all over Europe, almost all of them could be in anyone's tree in 1300 or so.  So we are all related !  :D

Of course in reality that means the tree contains a lot of overlaps, so laying it out will be rather difficult ....  :(
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Erato on Tuesday 02 January 18 23:54 GMT (UK)
And 2^33 = 8,589,934,592 ancestors.  We should probably all just start addressing each other as cousin.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Ruskie on Tuesday 02 January 18 23:58 GMT (UK)
Hopefully Annette will to return to clarify what she wants to do with her 33 generation tree. The thread is now on page four and we are none the wiser.

We might be able to offer some suggestions when we have more information.  :)
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: mirl on Wednesday 03 January 18 00:39 GMT (UK)
I just experimented with my tree which has one line going back 16 generations to c1490.  No Viking, no nobility, but plenty of bastards (of both sorts).

To print this would take 41 A4 sheets of paper and to display entirely connected would need about 2.5m2 or 27.5ft2
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Annette Witherby on Wednesday 03 January 18 00:58 GMT (UK)
To All,

My apologies' for having given you all such a time with my ancestors.

 I must sound very stupid but at 83 years I am afraid my words have come out very  confusing.

I intend reading each of your posts completely and I appreciate each and every one.
I realize that a tree is impractical and my files which hold every ones lives are more than enough.

I guess a page with good old Rollo at the top sounded inviting.
As far as authenticity of each name, every one joins with the previous little soul.

I will write again after reading your posts.
Thankyou for your patience and time,

Regards to all,     Annette   
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: stanmapstone on Wednesday 03 January 18 09:00 GMT (UK)
The assumption is that all the ancestors in your tree are distinct. What is happening is repetition of ancestors, that is, the same ancestors appearing over and over again in a pedigree. Repetition usually appears within the first ten generations, and the further back one goes, the more repetition one finds. It is called "Pedigree Collapse" http://www.familytreemagazine.com/article/what-is-pedigree-collapse.

Stan
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Annette Witherby on Wednesday 03 January 18 09:33 GMT (UK)
Hello Stan,
An interesting article.   I have decided  not to list all the siblings way back although the ones attached to those Kings and their mistresses made eyebrow raising reading. 
Thankyou for your imput.
Regards,  Annette
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: bitzar on Wednesday 03 January 18 14:54 GMT (UK)
Oh Annette

It looks like we're related...  :o :o :o

Rollo is also in the tree that I've been told that I'm related to!  What about 'Skull-splitter', does he appear in your tree?!

bitzar.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Rena on Wednesday 03 January 18 19:12 GMT (UK)
I have quite a modest family tree and the other year I thought I'd like to make my version of the Bayeux Tapestry to put on show running along the wall of my sitting room.  I visioned 50 and/or100 years in each section with fancy dividers and maybe include some images for backgrounds.  You can buy long rolls of paper with varying widths, but thought I would hand draw an initial draft on the back of a roll of excess wallpaper that I had.  Sad to say, my calligraphy was atrocious and I dropped the idea.   However, now that the subject has been brought up again I've surfed and seen some possibilities with submitting several sheets of my tree to printers who specialise in printing long rolls.  Plus I've seen one tablecloth manufacturer that specialises in custom print table tops.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Annette Witherby on Thursday 04 January 18 05:32 GMT (UK)
Hello Rena,

What a great idea!   My calligraphy is woeful so something else had to be done.   With so many little folk I am definitely doing just a direct - with no siblings tree in small printing and I will be happy.

Your ideas are super and I would love to hear how it all turns out.  The table cloth sounds exciting too.
Good for you!

Thankyou for your post.
Annette
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Annette Witherby on Thursday 04 January 18 05:43 GMT (UK)
Hi bitzar,

I guess you may be one of many with Rollo at the top of the tree.   No I do not have the skull-splitter in my branches but I will share the fruity wine by the same name with you.

My tree must branch off somewhere. I have Rollo, William 1, Richard 1,Richard 11,Robert 1, Good old William the Conqueror then Henry 1.
That is the first few. If you want to go further let me know.

Well here's to Rollo,

Annette
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: KGarrad on Thursday 04 January 18 09:10 GMT (UK)
Moving on a few generations, experts reckon there are in excess of 4 million descendants of Edward III?
And that virtually all English, nearly all in UK and Ireland, and millions of Americans are descended from Henry II.

The real success story is to have a provable line of descent, with documentary proof (rather than links to Ancestry trees!)
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Annette Witherby on Thursday 04 January 18 10:00 GMT (UK)
My goodness!  That has put a dampener on the works.   Yes I am sure you are right and I wonder why anyone would bother to try when the end result is impossible.

Nevertheless I could not be happier right now because having had my DNA tested, I have found my paternal Grandfather and a new family.  Just so sad that my Dad did not ever know.

Still I will keep my folders, gaze at their contents and enjoy reading of so many lives, regardless of their degree of provable facts.

Thankyou to you all,
Annette




Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Guy Etchells on Thursday 04 January 18 10:11 GMT (UK)
Quote from: KGarrad on Thursday 04 January 18 09:10 GMT (UK)
Moving on a few generations, experts reckon there are in excess of 4 million descendants of Edward III?
And that virtually all English, nearly all in UK and Ireland, and millions of Americans are descended from Henry II.

The real success story is to have a provable line of descent, with documentary proof (rather than links to Ancestry trees!)

I can't claim to have the majority of my lines back to the 14th century but I do have a number going that far back and so far none have any ancestral links to nobility but one does have a clergyman given an honoury title.
I doubt if there is any nobility in my lineage at all no matter what these estimates claim.

I would also add that studies have shown if the maths projections are turned around and worked from creation to the present day there would not be enough land on the earth surface to allow each man, woman and child 1 square metre to stand on.

Cheers
Guy
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Finley 1 on Thursday 04 January 18 14:09 GMT (UK)
Quote from: KGarrad on Thursday 04 January 18 09:10 GMT (UK)
Moving on a few generations, experts reckon there are in excess of 4 million descendants of Edward III?
And that virtually all English, nearly all in UK and Ireland, and millions of Americans are descended from Henry II.

The real success story is to have a provable line of descent, with documentary proof (rather than links to Ancestry trees!)


EGGS 'actly


xin

most of the 'links'  are unproven and WRONG   Today I corrected --- a close member of my family  ------ they had MY (my very own and one and only :) :)  MOTHERS death down totally wrong..  8 years out  --- why -----

Well they had NOT (for some reason !!!) searched for her death under her 2nd marriage name.

they found someone born in same town - with near enough DOB and same MAIDEN name details.. and that sufficed.    AAARRRGHH  and that as I say is a very CLOSE member of my family.. SO never trust a . n. other tree  without written proof.. although they actually argued they had the proof... but they had NOT got the certificates or been at the darn funeral  as I had.  :) :) :) RIP mother xxxxx

Xin
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: ThrelfallYorky on Thursday 04 January 18 15:25 GMT (UK)
Getting back to your original point, Annette, it would be a really major undertaking  ( and you'd need a really big wall to do it well) to show all your lineage in one panel.
- why not do one on your main line of as far back as you absolutely know and have documentary proof in relatively modern times, that should get you well back into 1500s, and then another one of the really historic lineage before that, allowing at least one generation overlap between the two?
That one shouldn't need as much width, if it's a direct lineage only, and should result in a couple of decorative panels that demonstrate what you want to show. And you can keep your folders safe in a filing cabinet or five!
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Top-of-the-hill on Thursday 04 January 18 17:21 GMT (UK)
  Like Guy, I doubt if there is any nobility in my ancestry, just Saxon peasants. I would just be happy to get back to the 1500s! I have a couple of lines back 9 generations fairly confidently to the later 1600s, and I have found no evidence yet of close cousin marriages. In the East Kent branch, my grandfather has a full complement of 16 separate gr.gr. grandparents in the early 1700s.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: JAKnighton on Thursday 04 January 18 17:27 GMT (UK)
Quote from: Guy Etchells on Thursday 04 January 18 10:11 GMT (UK)
I would also add that studies have shown if the maths projections are turned around and worked from creation to the present day there would not be enough land on the earth surface to allow each man, woman and child 1 square metre to stand on.

Cheers
Guy
Can you please explain this in more detail, as I'm quite sure that pedigree collapse neatly accounts for this.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Guy Etchells on Thursday 04 January 18 19:02 GMT (UK)
First may I suggest people read the more complex truth about pedigree collapse as the often held explanation that it is simple cousins marrying cousins does not in itself hold water however the cumulative effect of cousins marrying cousins then further interrelated generations of cousins marrying cousins multiples.
 See_  http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l9g/

One model of calculating the population of the world from creation to the present day is shown here (whether it can be believed is another question)
http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

However it does demonstrate how computer models can be flawed.
In a similar way most projects are flawed
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01l9h/

Cheers
Guy
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Finley 1 on Saturday 06 January 18 22:14 GMT (UK)
I wonder how and when the realisation that the totally messed up trees -- bind themselves together and then we end up with an implosion of cousins that no one can sort..

(p.s.  I am totally refusing to spell realisation with a Z no matter what the spell checker demands!!!)


xin

ok  well past her sell by :) 

Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Erato on Saturday 06 January 18 22:31 GMT (UK)
Why?  The Oxford Dictionary favors 'realize.'

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/03/28/ize-or-ise/
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Finley 1 on Saturday 06 January 18 22:46 GMT (UK)
Yes thanks for that, I reali 's' e that we used to spell things with the 'z' but our 's's' were also 'f'f's and I am a stubborn old biddy.
It took them long enough to teach me as it is - therefore that has to stick.  I still work in inches for goodness sake  :)  :) -. also still  on win 7    oops..


xin
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: KGarrad on Saturday 06 January 18 22:49 GMT (UK)
British English spells all ". . . ise" words with an "s" ;D
Spelling these words with a "z" (zed) is an American thing :-\

I, too refuse to use the zed-spellings! Just as I always use a "U" in colour, flavour, labour, etc ;D

Xin, we never used "f" instead of "s" - what we used was the long s "ſ" ;D
It's very similar, but there is no crosspiece?
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Erato on Saturday 06 January 18 23:12 GMT (UK)
There’s a widespread belief that these spellings belong only to American English, and that British English should use the ‘-ise’ forms instead, i.e. realise, finalise, and organise.

In fact, the ‘-ize’ forms have been in use in English spelling since the 15th century: they didn’t originate in American use, even though they are now standard in US English.  The first example for the verb organize in the Oxford English Dictionary is from around 1425, from an English translation of a treatise on surgery written by the French physician Guy de Chauliac:

The brayne after þe lengþ haþ 3 ventriclez, And euery uentricle haþ 3 parties & in euery partie is organized [L. organizatur] one vertue.

The OED’s earliest example for realize dates from 1611: it’s taken from a definition in A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues, a bilingual dictionary written by Randle Cotgrave:

Realiser, to realize, to make of a reall condition, estate, or propertie; to make reall.

The first recorded use of the verb with an ‘-ise’ spelling  in the OED is not until 1755 – over a century later!

The use of ‘-ize’ spellings is part of the house style at Oxford University Press. It reflects the style adopted in the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (which was published in parts from 1884 to 1928) and in the first editions of Hart’s Rules (1904) and the Authors’ and Printers’ Dictionary (1905). These early works chose the ‘-ize’ spellings as their preferred forms for etymological  reasons: the -ize ending corresponds to the Greek verb endings -izo and –izein.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Andrew Tarr on Saturday 06 January 18 23:28 GMT (UK)
Quote from: KGarrad on Saturday 06 January 18 22:49 GMT (UK)
British English spells all ". . . ise" words with an "s" ;D
Spelling these words with a "z" (zed) is an American thing :-\

I am also an s-user, not a z-, because that is what I learnt first.  I accept that Z is a closer representation of what is spoken, and is preferred on some linguistic grounds.  The S usage stems from French, which always keeps to S.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Finley 1 on Saturday 06 January 18 23:40 GMT (UK)
Quote from: KGarrad on Saturday 06 January 18 22:49 GMT (UK)


Xin, we never used "f" instead of "s" - what we used was the long s "ſ" ;D
It's very similar, but there is no crosspiece?


whoops  ( ;))
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Erato on Sunday 07 January 18 00:16 GMT (UK)
It doesn't make much difference either way, whether 's' or 'z,' since both are equally intelligible.  I never notice which spelling is used.  I read hundreds of letters from my English mother over the years but which spelling did she use?   Was she tainted by her years in the United States or did she stick to her roots?  I have no idea.
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Top-of-the-hill on Sunday 07 January 18 14:28 GMT (UK)
   I think I have always used the Z spellings, though I seem to be unsure now which to use. I may be sticking with z, as the computer prefers it!
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: ThrelfallYorky on Sunday 07 January 18 16:01 GMT (UK)
I always use "S" not "Z", an put "U" in the words it should have it in, and I shall continue to do so, despite intrusive spellcheckers!
I woz tort propper wen I wuz at skool!
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: Finley 1 on Sunday 07 January 18 17:39 GMT (UK)
 ;D ;D ;D ;D



did I accidentally set 'a cat amongst the pigeons'


so sorry   (
not really  :) 
)

xin
Title: Re: 33 generation tree
Post by: [Ray] on Sunday 07 January 18 18:57 GMT (UK)
No, Zin (  ;D )

"katz amung pijuns"

Ray
or is it Rea Rae Rey Rai . . . . . ?
 ::)