Which patronymic, Olofsson/Olsson, as LNAB for Olof's son when his birth/baptismal record doesn't give his last name?

Question

In many early Swedish (and other countries') birth/baptismal records, the parents' full names are provided but only the given names of the child are provided. The Swedish Patronymics in WikiTree space page indicates that in "the patronymic system the sons of an Olof were Olofsson or Olsson". For a child whose father's given name is Olof, when the child's last name is not specified in the birth/baptismal record, should we use Olofsson or Olsson for the child's LNAB?

The example Erich/Eric/Erik Olsson/Olofsson profile, to which I linked this question, currently has Olsson as the LNAB for the individual in question. His 1764-1775 and 1776-1783 Household Book records have Olsson as his last name. His 1768 marriage record, and 1783-1789 and 1785-1791 Household Book records have Olofsson as his last name. The remaining Household Book records have Olsson as his last name.

I'm looking for some general guidance that can be applied in other similar situations: Olofsdotter vs Olsdotter, Eriksson vs Ersson, Eriksdotter vs Ersdotter, etc.

Here's a similar situation Eric/Erik Ersson. The first 3 sources currently cited on the profile (including his birth/baptismal record) don't provide a last name for him. The remaining 17 currently cited sources have Ersson as his last name.

Answer 1

I think the idea is that the first written name is the LNAB, more or less. I would say the profile is correct as it is.

Also, if current last name would have been Olofsson it would have been fine in my opinion, although not 100% technically correct?

Answer 2

This is the resource I use when trying to figure out patronymics (and in some cases matronymics) for nordic names.

https://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/Main_Page

Answer 3

Although use of either seems to be acceptable, I would use the longer version - Olofsson rather than Olsson, as it indicates that the parent is Olof and not Ole/Ola.

Comments

Both means son of Olof. In the 1700s it is the same name with just a spelling variation. Olsson is just short for Olofsson. Today they have evolved into different names with exact spelling.

Answer 4

Olofsson or Olsson. Olofsdotter vs Olsdotter, Eriksson vs Ersson, Eriksdotter vs Ersdotter, etc.

Olsson, Olsdotter, Ersson, Ersdotter, back in the 1700s are all just short forms. It is the same names. The priest wanted to write less letters and shortened everything.
Ersdtr=Eriksdotter

It is best to standardize to the long form, since this is the most common, and so many people do standardize the names like that. It makes searching and matching so much easier.

"The list of names reflects the state of names within Sweden's current borders from the 16th century to the middle of the 19th century. During the latter part of the 19th century, literacy increased among the broad population at the same time as names began to be spelled more consistently in official documents. The genealogist should therefore, in the case of modern times (the last 100-150 years), follow the spelling used by the persons themselves or - if it is not known - the one that appears in the church records or other official sources."

https://www.rotter.se/faktabanken/personnamn/bakgrund-namnlistan (The standard reference for Swedish names, see separate answer)
 

Answer 5

The standard reference for standardizing Swedish names is:

"Så stavar du namnen. Sveriges släktforskarförbunds namnlista" (Skogsjö 1999)

https://www.rotter.se/faktabanken/personnamn/?view=listmanagerfront
https://www.rotter.se/faktabanken/personnamn/bakgrund-namnlistan
https://wiki.rotter.se/images/2/26/S%C3%A5_stavar_du_namnen_-_Sl%C3%A4ktforskarf%C3%B6rbundets_namnlista.pdf

Answer 6

Short answer: Very often you don't see the patronym in a source until a person leaves their parents' home. You look at the father's first name at birth, let's say it is Eric. You standardize it to Erik and you get Eriksson as patronym/last name/LNAB for the child.

EDIT (after Axel's first comment below), long answer:
I meant the short answer above as what to do when you only have the birth record, when you have the HHE, it is more complicated:
Quote:
"Which source, then, is most reliable in determining the name of a person who lived a hundred or two hundred years ago? To be able to answer the question, we have to consider how the various sources were created and used. In the birth, marriage and death records, the priest made notes when the parishioners had their children baptized, married or buried their dead. There were solemn occasions with ceremonies and rituals, it was easy for the priest to be infected by the seriousness of the moment. People who in almost all other contexts are named Per, Olof, Kajsa or Greta are suddenly listed as Petrus, Olaus, Katarina and Margareta. This is most evident in the birth records, which thus become the least reliable source.

The household examination books worked quite differently.

Once a year the ancestors had to pass the household examination. The priest sat at a table with the book in front of him, called out the names of the congregants one by one and tested them on Christian knowledge and literacy. Then he dipped the quill into the inkhorn and noted their skills.

In other words, it was essential – for practical reasons – to note the correct forms of names in the house interrogation length, names that people recognized. The farmer Olof Johansson - always called "Södergårds-Olle" in the village - would hardly like the name Olaus, which he didn't even know he was recorded with in the birth book by the priest, knowledgeable in Latin and with a taste of the learned."

"And the best single source is probably the household examination books."

https://www.rotter.se/faktabanken/personnamn/bakgrund-namnlistan (The standard reference for swedish names, see separate answer)

Comments

I used to standardize the names before WikiTree but that was because it would be easier to find, not because it was the "correct" name. I now try to find the first instance of a last name (marriage records, household records after moving from the family etc). If this failes I try to look find the names for the siblings and use that as a standard for all siblings. Lastly, if I don't find any I would use the father's name as spelled in the birth record followed by "sson" or "sdotter". Most troublesome I find setting LNAB on profiles with a birth between about 1880-1900. The LNAB should usually be the patronymic, but the first found instance of a name is usually a family name. I have also noticed that in larger cities in Sweden the convention to use family name instead of patronymic was more common even in the 1860s and the 1870s.

---

Yes I agree on most you wrote.  It gets complicated. I edited my answer and included the long explanation from the standard reference on Swedish names:
"Så stavar du namnen. Sveriges släktforskarförbunds namnlista" (Skogsjö 1999).

I think it is important to still standardize Swedish names, before 1850,  even on Wikitree. The spelling variations before 1850 are completely random, means nothing, and just create a lot of problems. Trying to find the "correct" and "original" spelling when the spelling variations were completely random, is a waste of time.

---

Standardized names might be more important on WikiTree than on other platforms because WikiTree currently can't search for variants or phonetic similar names like many other platforms. However, this goes against "Use their conventions instead of ours" and especially "Spelling conventions" in the document https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Name_Fields#Use_their_conventions_instead_of_ours.

The spelling was more fluent before, Olof, Olaus, Olaugus Ola etc are basically the same name, same with for example Måns and Magnus/Magni and here it's only the first letter that is the same. The same person could have several different variants of the name in different sources. It's not easy to give a definite answer how the names should be spelled or how to interpret the rule "Use their conventions instead of ours".

---

The main purpose with a world genealogical Tree is to find the right person. To avoid duplicates. I think the best for WikiTree is to use the list that D. Bruno mentioned, from Sveriges släktforskarförbund. The different spellings that occurs in the sources can be listed in the biography.

---

We are all aware of "Use their conventions instead of ours" I think. It is a beautiful idea, and it should be used when it is practically relevant.

When it comes to Swedish names and locations, the way the Swedish priests were spelling before 1850, and also how Wikitree searching and matching works, it is not practical, it is not possible to use their exact spelling. We have to standardize. And the recommendation to do so from the most professional genealogists in Sweden is very clear.

---

The relevant and practical part from "Use their conventions instead of ours" is:

Do it the way [the most professional] Swedish genealogists do. Which is the intent behind this question, which is very good.

---

Also, it's worth noting that "Use their conventions, not ours" is only relevant for cases where they had a convention that we can use. If a family has a tradition of using a specific spelling, it should obviously be used even if it looks odd, and if a place name has been changed (eg Kristiania > Oslo) we should use the one contemporary with the person we're working on, but in cases like this where there isn't any consistency to be found, the rule is simply not applicable.

Answer 7

I would use the spelling of the father's name as recorded in the child's birth record and add son or dotter, as appropriate.  If there is a Household Examination record for the father made at the time of the child's birth, you can use that to confirm the spelling.  Presume that you will have variations in spelling over time.  I find that the older the birth record the more variations there will be in the spelling.  17th and 18th century entries have the most inconsistencies.  I note the different spellings in the comment section of the profile.