1

I have several examples of this same surname over time as shared in this answer for a marriage record.

Oldest example in Kurrent handwriting (around 1800): enter image description here

Groom of the marriage in 1837:

enter image description here

Father of groom of the marriage in 1837:

enter image description here

Next oldest around mid 1800s:

enter image description here

Around 1873:

enter image description here

And these three from around 1876:

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

The modern spellings appear to clearly be Obaha, so are the earlier ones misread, stylistic variations, or what?

Improve this question
1
  • 2
    You're imposing 20th/21st century ideas of standardized spelling on an era where those standards didn't exist. Consider that in most original records, people have dictated their names to a clerk who wrote the record down, and even if they were literate themselves, they may not have seen their own entries in register books if there wasn't a requirement for them to sign the register.
    – Jan Murphy ♦
    Commented Jan 1, 2018 at 2:15

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

There seems to be a change from Obacha to Obaha. Could be a spelling change between languages (similar to zh to č); could be a pronunciation change over time, reflected in the spelling; could be due to different native language of the record-keepers (who recorded names as they heard them, using the spelling conventions they were familiar with).

enter image description here

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.