It seems that you are going to make some serious mistakes in your investigations, therefore I put aside my other activities and decided to write some words about church records and Latvian language of 1810s. It took some time to compile the text and meanwhile Elizabete has solved some problems, so I have edited the initial text though not in full extent, some redundancy could be found.
From your interpretation of texts I am not sure that you remember that in the 1810s the Latvian peasants were serfs, as the rule had no hereditary family names and were recognized by their first names and the farms they lived in. The serfdom was abolished in Kurland in 1817 and the naming was going on there even much later in 1835. For this reason the church books written before this time are not very helpful for genealogical research, because the individuals can not be certainly identified, though some reasonable guesses could be made, however. If you are working with CDs in a FHC of Mormons, as I suppose, it would be a good idea to find the church book which contained the participants of Holy Communions for this perish. This book should present lists of inhabitants of a farm by their family relations. Some Pastors even added later the family names in the records of this book made before the naming. Unfortunately, these books were lost much more frequently than the birth records, maybe because they had less legal importance later compared with birth (baptism) records.
So in the case which you think is quite obvious
Pahlana Reina un Mahres d. Mikkel
you would better not write:
Reina Pahlana and Mahres baptised a son named Mikkel
like a surname and the first name but rather:
Reinis and Mahre from Pahlans (or Pahlan) farm baptised a son named Mikkel
just to avoid some possible misunderstanding. As in any farm a lot of people lived (30 persons was not many), so to distinguish eventual individuals of the same name, additional information was needed. This is why in your samples some family relations and social status are mentioned.
The main person in a farm was the farmhost. He was a serf too, but he had relatively high position, he was responsible for the organization of work there and for good relations with the manor owner. In the farm lived his wife and children, his parents and quite frequently also his brothers and non-married sisters. Additionally, he hired the farm staff, of course, under supervising of the manor owner. During the naming process the farmhosts quite frequently, though not always, acquired the hereditary family names coined of the names of their farms. The life of the farmhost was also relatively stable â€“ his family lived in the farm for many years unlike farmhands and other hired workers who could change farms frequently.
The first name in the record samples you studied most probably was the name of the farmhost or of another independent family head, then came the name of the father of the baptized child with the relation to the farmhost (family head), and the last was the name of the mother.
It is clear you have some knowledge of Latvian â€“ after all, you could make the right guess of the word â€˜znotsâ€™, but it seems you have missed some grammatical peculiarities of the samples. It is important that almost all words of these records are in the possessive case (Genitive); in the common case (Nominative) they sound different. For example Pahlana is the possesive case of Pahlans (or simply Pahlan), Reina - Reinis (or simply Rein), Mahres - Mahre. Mikkel is in the common case, however. The names in the possesive case could be rewritten in English as Pahlans' (or Pahlan's) Mahre's or Reinis' (Rein's), or maybe it would be better for our interpretations to understand them like Pahlana - of Pahlan, Mahres - of Mahre etc.
All this grammar stuff is important in order to avoid a mistake you made in your tentative interpretation of other records #2 and further. To explain it, we need the correctly spelled samples, I think, so first about the spelling of the samples.
The church books of that time were written in Latvian in rare cases. (After 1832 the Lutheran Pastors were obliged to write the church books in German and after 1892 in Russian). All Pastors of that time (1810s) were ethnical Germans, they were examined by the Consistory in the Latvian language, but one should not expect they were the best experts in the language. In general the problems with the written Latvian were not solved yet, and the Pastor, who wrote your samples, could have some personal ideas how to put Latvian he heard in written form. So some misspellings of your samples could be attributed to the errors of the original texts, but more probably you made your own mistakes while reading, I am sorry.
The Latvian orthography of that time was very similar to the German system of writing. For example, the letter â€˜hâ€™ (like in the word Pahlan) was used to mark long vowels, the doubling of a consonant (like in the word Madde) was used to show that the previous vowel is short, as you evidently know. The letter â€˜sâ€™ was pronounced as the letter â€˜zâ€™ of the modern time. As in Latvian also the sound â€˜sâ€™ (like in the word â€˜seeâ€™) exists, this sound was pictured in printed form as the crossed letter â€˜sâ€™. In handwritten texts the letter â€˜sâ€™ was underlined or sometimes crossed, but I do not know which method was used in your church book, of course. It should be taken into account also that the letter â€˜sâ€™ had two variants in printed and as well in handwritten forms, like in the word â€˜Ilsesâ€™ of one of your samples, I guess. To be consistent, I can add that the letterfaces in the handwritten (only in handwritten!) Latvian of that time were not those of Gothic, as Elizabete claimed, but Antigua. You may check it, for example, by studying the letter 'h' - if it is written like you write in English today, it is in Antigua, in Gothic it should be written like a prolonged handwritten 's'. By the way, the names usually were handwritten in Antigua also in lists compiled in German, in spite that usually Germans used Gothic.
Now we can analyze your readings.
Quite possibly, you frequently misread the letter â€˜sâ€™ as â€˜jâ€™. To my opinion the word Lihje sounds much better if read as Lihse - in modern spelling Lâ€™ize (very popular first name of that time, shortened form of Elisabete), with long â€˜iâ€™, similarly the word jnots should be read as snots â€“ modern spelling znots. The letterfaces of both these letters really were similar.
The word brahta should be the possessive case of the word brahlis: now brâ€™alis â€“ brâ€™aâ€™la with long â€˜aâ€™ and and softened â€˜lâ€™. The misspelling could arose, because the softened â€˜lâ€™ in handwritten texts was marked by crossing the normal â€˜lâ€™ what made this letter similar to â€˜tâ€™.
The word â€˜eebuweetsâ€™ is read correctly, the word â€˜eebuweesthaâ€™ is not. The letter â€˜câ€™ should be read instead of the letter â€˜tâ€™. In this case we would have the possessive case of the word â€˜eebuweetsâ€™. Similarly Kristha should be a misspelling of the word Krischa. In both words the letter â€˜sâ€™ had to be underlined (crossed) that could made it look like the letter â€˜tâ€™, and some writers wrote stylish â€˜câ€™s with an ornamental adding on the top.
Putting all together, the other your samples could be put in English in the following way (I am writing the names in modern way, though omitting the diacritics):
#2. Farmhand Vilums of farmhost Jorgis of farm Uldrikis and Vilums' wife Lize baptised their son Martins.
(Farm's Uldrikis farmhost's Jorgis farmhand's Vilums' and Lize's son Martins or
Martins, a son of Lize and Vilums, farmhand of Jorgis, a farmhost of Uldrikis)
Very important!!! Jorgis was not a farmhand of Vilums, as you wrote, but, at the contrary, Vilums was a farmhand of Jorgis! Lize was the wife of Vilums and Vilums was the father of Martins.
#3 Andrejs, who was a son of Janis living in farm Veveri, and his wife Ilze baptised their son Karlis.
Quite possibly Janis was the farmhost of Veveri, but he could be, say, a brother of the farmhost. Evidently he was not a farmhand.
#4 Janis, a son-in-law of Kriss from farm Drumpe, and Trine baptised their daughter Made.
Please, note that Trine was not registered as a daughter of Kriss but as the wife of Janis, just for understanding the sexism of that time.
Speaking about the word â€˜eebuweetsâ€™, Elizabete explained it correctly. I can not agree with her, however, that his social status was lower than that of a farmhand. At the contrary, it was higher though not very much higher. Iebuvietis could have some private property, especially later after the abolishing of serfdom, for example, a cow, or even a horse.
Finally, I wished to inform you that I am working on the Internet Site for the family research in the Latvia territory - it considers all people that lived here without regard on ethnicity, religion etc. Now it is ready for testing, so I am offering some people with good (better than my) English knowledge to read some texts and to correct evident language mistakes. If you (or other people reading this) agreed to take part in this activity, you could read about variants of spelling of the Latvian language, about the naming of Latvians, about free (not serfs) Latvians at the beginning of 1800s, about migrations of Latvians and other ethnicities and much more (about 600 html files). The problems of church book reading and the inner startification of Latvian peasants are not covered yet, however. Please, contact me privately, if you have time and wish for this activity.
With best regards.