How far back in time have you managed to trace your family tree?

[Rethel]

It's (in same tree) if we start to look back from me.

No, they are not.
You are not a progenitor of your ascendants.
They are all a parts of different trees. About
the nature of the trees taught us the foruth
grade biology class, if someone does really not
know, how trees are growing - should return there.
They are growing from the one seed, not from
many, and from the seed - not from leaves.

Ok. So what you meant?

You can say, that your family tree is far as such and such,
when the oldest known nacestor in prime line lived here and
then. You can add as a curiosity, that your's mother's tree
(better: your mother's maiden family's tree) goes as far as
such and such. But it is not yours. Your is only the one, on
which you was born, and the one to which you will married.
Maiden families of your mother grandmother, greatgrandmother
aso are not your families. Otherwise, everyone would have to
be a member of all families on the earth - what would be not
only sensless but also idiotic, and what would make all stuff
meaningless - nothing strage, that people who follow such
retardness, finally landed in the point, where is no family,
no forefathers, no grandsons, no heritage. Proof: look at
the 90% of Apriticians. Rootless morons who want to
turn everyone to their primitive level.

[Bobby Martnen]

In our culture (as in most cultures) it's considered rude to call family members by their real name too.

In America, the standard is "Relationship Firstname" for aunts, uncles, and sometimes grandparents (i.e. Uncle Bobby, Grandpa Ed), Mom/Ma/Mother and Dad/Pa/Father for parents, and first name for cousins and descendants. Grandparents are sometimes just Grandma/Gram and Grandpa/Gramps. I've never actually heard someone call their grandparents "Grandmother" and "Grandfather"

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

No, they are not.
You are not a progenitor of your ascendants.
They are all a parts of different trees. About
the nature of the tree taught us the foruth
grade biology class, if someone does really not
know, how trees are growing - should return there.
They are growing from the one seed, not from
many, and from the seed - not from leaves.



You can say, that your family tree is far as such and such,
when the oldest known nacestor in prime line lived here and
then. You can add as a curiosity, that your's mother's tree
(better: your mother's maiden family's tree) goes as far as
such and such. But it is not yours. Your is only the one, on
which you was born, and the one to which you will married.
Maiden families of your mother grandmother, greatgrandmother
aso are not your families. Otherwise, everyone would have to
be a member of all families on the earth - what would be not
only sensless but also idiotic, and what would make all stuff
meaningless - nothing strage, that people who follow such
retardness, finally landed in the point, where is no family,
no forefathers, no grandsons, no heritage. Proof: look at
the 90% of Apriticians. Rootless morons who want to
turn everyone to their primitive level.

Brah, just stop your'e making fool of yourself. She showed you a family tree. Thats what a family tree is. You read it from bottom to top because the base is you and the top is your ancestors.

[Rethel]

Brah, just stop your'e making fool of yourself. She showed you a family tree. Thats what a family tree is. You read it from bottom to top because the base is you and the top is your ancestors.

How it can be a family, if people on that graph are not even related?!

The only fool here, are you - who do not even understand, what the family is, or what the tree is.

First educate yourself insted of spreding ignorant nonsense.

This is the table of ascendants - not tree.

The people on the top of the graph are not members of one
family - they were totaly foreign people to each other - so
even logically it cannot be a family tree - becasue as the
very name tells you it has to be one family, not many.

In your ignorance, you did not even undersand my whole post,
but only the ilustration, which you obviously perverted to your
own moronic view accusing me of such state.

Better just be silent - I really do not have time to speak with
ignorants who refuse to admit that are wrong or learn something.
And btw - I was not speaking to you, so, just leave...

[SvartVarg]

nvm

[Finnish Swede]

Fine. I do't care what that tree (page 5) is called in english (or should be called)....but I like it exactly like that.

Mainly because all those persons (in the top...who of course...are not related to each others)....are related to you...and have transported their genes to you....more a less. And that way they all are important!

Anyway...doing it like that we are at the moment going on at 16th and 17th centuries.

[Bobby Martnen]

This is the table of ascendants - not tree.

This is a pedigree chart:

[Rethel]

Fine. I do't care

You should, you do not live in the forest.

[Rethel]

This is a pedigree chart:

Pedegree is rather primal - from father to son. This is Ahnentafel - Table of Ascendants.
The fact, that people are cofusing terminology, doesn;t mean, that you should.

In czech they have brilliant term: rodokmen - and there is no cofusing at all.
Google the term, they probably never confuse it. Or at least shouldn;t.

p.s. basic fundamental termonology, I explained in my thread.

[Smitty]

Pedegree is rather primal - from father to son. This is Ahnentafel - Table of Ascendants.
The fact, that people are cofusing terminology, doesn;t mean, that you should.

In czech they have brilliant term: rodokmen - and there is no cofusing at all.
Google the term, they probably never confuse it. Or at least shouldn;t.

p.s. basic fundamental termonology, I explained in my thread.

Rethel, in English, that is exactly what a family tree is (and apparently in Finland too). You can disagree with its value, but that is what it is. It is so named because it looks like a tree. The analogy stops there. Your paternal line is a branch - yes, the most important one - on that tree.