I received a new email saying that those 3 records at the end of my last post proves he has my family. They are short and I've cropped them in these new links to make it easier to read, enlarge, and translate. I would appreciate if someone can translate them for me:
http://postimg.org/image/am3p4uzj3/
http://postimg.org/image/nlwj5jrol/
http://postimg.org/image/r1hwnka0v/
Latin Translation request
Re: Latin Translation request
Ron
The third link you reposted is incorrect, so I went with the previous post on that one-
1. Nov 12, 1704 Parents: Francesco di Puma Leonardi (Francesco di Puma, son of Leonardo ?) and Santa Collura. Infant baptized- Diego Giuseppe di Puma. Godparents: Giuseppe of Fabio Rozzari (sp?) and Cesarea, wife of Angelo Collura.
2. March 4, 1688 infant Gaspare Giovanni Puma, says Pumo in the margin, of Francesco and Santa Pagliarello. Godparents: Maestro Baldassare d'Amico and Giovanna, the wife of Vincenzo Macaluso.
3. #838 April 14, 1672
Adriana Pumo (with an o and not an a) Pagliarello. Of Leonardo and Vincenza Pumo di Puma alias Pagliarello. Godparents were Cesario Serralla (sp?) alias ? and Maria, wife of Felice Cana.
Erudita
The third link you reposted is incorrect, so I went with the previous post on that one-
1. Nov 12, 1704 Parents: Francesco di Puma Leonardi (Francesco di Puma, son of Leonardo ?) and Santa Collura. Infant baptized- Diego Giuseppe di Puma. Godparents: Giuseppe of Fabio Rozzari (sp?) and Cesarea, wife of Angelo Collura.
2. March 4, 1688 infant Gaspare Giovanni Puma, says Pumo in the margin, of Francesco and Santa Pagliarello. Godparents: Maestro Baldassare d'Amico and Giovanna, the wife of Vincenzo Macaluso.
3. #838 April 14, 1672
Adriana Pumo (with an o and not an a) Pagliarello. Of Leonardo and Vincenza Pumo di Puma alias Pagliarello. Godparents were Cesario Serralla (sp?) alias ? and Maria, wife of Felice Cana.
Erudita
Re: Latin Translation request
Since the genealogist is saying that these records prove he has my family of Francesco Puma and wife, parents of Giovanni Puma who married Rosa Longo in 1717, , I do not understand how the first document can be Santa Collura and the second one Santa Pagliarello and they be the same person as appears in the 1717 marriage record. These could be two different people and two different marriages. What is your opinion on this issue?
Re: Latin Translation request
Duplicate post deleted. I sometimes get errors I've never seen on this site previously, so i re-submit, but then both posts appear. There seems to be no way to completely delete my own post.
Re: Latin Translation request
Ron
One thing you have to understand about church documents is that there is no uniformity between them. Even when written by the same priest or his clerk, the info that was included from one record to another may differ. When the Sacred Council of Trent in about 1545-1562 dictated that the local parishes had to start keeping registers for their births, marriage, and deaths, it did not dictate the format that those documents had to take. So that's why there is such discrepancy between the info which appears in one record from the info that appears in another. I question the last record though since the mother's first name is now Vincenza and not Santa in that record and the father is Leonardo and not Francesco. So that may be a record of a different generation level, yet related to the same family. In other words, the child baptized in that record may be a sibling of Francesco and not a child of his. Priests did not always use the maiden name of the mother, so it's possible in one record her maiden name was used but in another only her married surname was used. The idea that Italian women retained their maiden names in their records does not seem to apply to church records. It was at the discretion of the individual priest who wrote the record as to which surname he used for a woman, and whether or not he included both the surname of her father and the surname of her husband for her.
Hopefully you'll get some feedback from some others on this forum.
Erudita
One thing you have to understand about church documents is that there is no uniformity between them. Even when written by the same priest or his clerk, the info that was included from one record to another may differ. When the Sacred Council of Trent in about 1545-1562 dictated that the local parishes had to start keeping registers for their births, marriage, and deaths, it did not dictate the format that those documents had to take. So that's why there is such discrepancy between the info which appears in one record from the info that appears in another. I question the last record though since the mother's first name is now Vincenza and not Santa in that record and the father is Leonardo and not Francesco. So that may be a record of a different generation level, yet related to the same family. In other words, the child baptized in that record may be a sibling of Francesco and not a child of his. Priests did not always use the maiden name of the mother, so it's possible in one record her maiden name was used but in another only her married surname was used. The idea that Italian women retained their maiden names in their records does not seem to apply to church records. It was at the discretion of the individual priest who wrote the record as to which surname he used for a woman, and whether or not he included both the surname of her father and the surname of her husband for her.
Hopefully you'll get some feedback from some others on this forum.
Erudita
Re: Latin Translation request
Since the third record is 32 years older than the first record, it probably represents another generation. I won't know that until I agree to pay for the marriage records of Francesco's parents and grandparents. Since there is no marriage record found for Francesco, I have been questioning the genealogist as to whether he really has marriage records for my family or someone else also named Francesco Puma.