From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 at 21:35:57, Richard Damon   
    wrote (my responses usually follow points   
   raised):   
   >On 10/10/21 4:00 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >> Reading through the responses to familysearch's "new" cousin charts   
   >>(actually just newly re-emailed - they emailed about the same ones   
   >>about  a year ago [not that they aren't useful]), I got to idly wondering:   
   >>  If there's a second marriage somewhere, so you are still related to   
   >>the  person but only by one parent at some point in the chain, we say   
   >>they're  your half whatever (uncle, nepling, xth cousin y removed)*.   
   >>You still  share DNA, though only half as much as would otherwise be   
   >>the case -  though I'm sure the "half" terminology well predates DNA.   
   >>  If there's another second marriage somewhere - so that you still   
   >>share  ancestry, but only half as much DNA again - what is the term -   
   >>do we say  a "half half" whatever, or a "quarter"?   
   >>  (Of course, if the second marriage was _of_ a second spouse, you   
   >>might  have _no_ common ancestry; I wasn't thinking of that case!)   
   >>  Just an idle wonder, of the sort that might suggest I have too much   
   >>time  on my hands (which I don't!). I just don't _think_ I've ever   
   >>heard  anyone refer to either a half half something or a quarter   
   >>something!   
   >>  (* The "half" terminology doesn't clarify _where_ the second   
   >>marriage  took place - for a half third cousin, for example, you don't   
   >>know if it  was a grandparent, GGP, or GGGP who married twice - or on   
   >>which side.)   
   >   
   >The 'Half' term, as I understand it, only applies at the common   
   >ancestor point, because elsewhere on the chain, only one parent is part   
   >of the chain anyway in the path of either you or them to the common   
   >parent(s).   
      
   Very good point! So the question doesn't arise. (I was typing out my   
   "no, ..." response when I found you were right!)   
   >   
   >The only way to get 2-halves, would be to start with a double   
   >relationship, sharing two sets of 'common ancestors', where, for   
   >example if two brothers marry two sisters, there children are   
   >double-1st-cousins having all 4 grand parents in common. In that case   
   >you could have one or two 'half' relationships for the two common sets   
   >of ancestors.   
      
   I guess the relationship would then be "double half" or "half double"!   
   Aren't these things complicated!   
      
   (I've often thought things are going to get more difficult for   
   genealogists in future, with the increase in divorce and/or multiple   
   partners these days - though in fact it's not as common as it looked   
   like it was going to be, in say the 1960s-'80s. A more recent phenomenon   
   that _would_ complicate things is changing surnames - double-barrelled,   
   wives not changing, husbands changing, and many others - but that's   
   probably countered by much better record-keeping nowadays.)   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to   
   be doing at the moment. -Robert Benchley, humorist, drama critic, and actor   
   (1889-1945)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)