Search for content in message boards

U vs. V

Posted: 21 Jan 2013 5:10AM GMT
Classification: Query
I could've sworn I saw some instructions somehwere about this, but now I can't find anything and I'm starting to second-guess myself.

For records from the early 1600s (particularly these), if what is very clearly a U is used as a consonant instead of a V (e.g. "Dauidt" or "Siluester"), is that always keyed as a "u" or are there times when it should be keyed as a "v"?
Posted: 21 Jan 2013 3:04PM GMT
Classification: Query
I don't know much about old languages and have keyed as I have seen.

Re: U vs. V

Posted: 21 Jan 2013 11:06PM GMT
Classification: Query
if it is very clearly a u it should always be keyed as such.

I know in English, and I presume German too that u and v were once completely interchangeable.


Here's typeset a sample in English

Re: U vs. V

Posted: 24 Jan 2013 4:41AM GMT
Classification: Query
I just realized that what I was dimly remembering is actually a Library of Congress transcription rule. Sorry about that! Sometimes it's hard to keep all the transcription rules & rule interpretations that I have to deal with all staying nicely in their separate mental boxes.

( http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcri01_0e.pdf and http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/mergedprojects/rarebks/rarebks/ap... (though that one is missing the Unicode original characters), if anyone's curious.)
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | New Privacy | New Terms and Conditions