There is a contribution up where the contributor is changing the parsing of this name from 'Brian/Van't/Hul' to 'Brian/ /Van't Hul'.  The only documentation is "Van't is an article like de la, von, ...".  As I noted in another thread, 25 of 26 voters have voted yes without question.  I, on the other hand, have a question...is 'Van't' an article?

For what it's worth, I am not the lone no voter, I am just curious.  I try to enter these things properly, when I can, and would just like to know.

I would also lean towards yes it's an article, as I'm familiar with the scientist known as Jacobus van't Hoff. I've always heard him referred to as "van't Hoff"

I'm not saying that's always the case, but...

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
...

And i don't mean the kind of documentation Alien, supplied. Specific documentation for THAT person.

Could you please tell us what is wrong with the two links Alien gave.

Both point to articles about Mr. Van't Hul and both articles refer to "Van't Hul" at some point. The one from MSU states "That's because Van't Hul, who graduated from Montana State University's film school in 1987, makes a living bringing fantasy to life."

If this is not good enough for you, what is?

pdf

Van 't is indeed an article, and should always be listed as part of the last name field.

This is all well and good, but as I noted the user cited no supporting documentation, simply his "statement of fact" and THAT is not acceptable. No documentation no yes vote. How can it be said always @ Taro and Tim, what is the basis for this "claim". I will wager it is based upon culture, which one wonders how can you make such a claim about someone living in another country, and in one of the most strange and eclectic sub-cultures on the planet.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
How can it be said always @ Taro and Tim

The same way the rules tell us that "de, de la, di, von" are articles that are always to be listed as part of the last name field. That list is not exhaustive (as proven by the "such as" preceding those examples). Van, van het, van 't and van de are just some more exampes of these - they're no different than the examples that are listed in the rules.

+1

van 't is an article originated from The Netherlands and/or Flanders (Dutch-speaking part of Belgium). I'm sure there are several sources on the net that can prove it. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_name

Quoting Corne:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
How can it be said always @ Taro and Tim

The same way the rules tell us that "de, de la, di, von" are articles that are always to be listed as part of the last name field. That list is not exhaustive (as proven by the "such as" preceding those examples). Van, van het, van 't and van de are just some more exampes of these - they're no different than the examples that are listed in the rules.

+1

van 't is an article originated from The Netherlands and/or Flanders (Dutch-speaking part of Belgium). I'm sure there are several sources on the net that can prove it. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_name

That is a culture based argument Corne, which may or may NOT be true in every case, particularly when you are dealing with a person, in this case who is outside of the culture.

Tim:

I understand the list is not complete or exhaustive, but as I noted the user did not offer ANY supportb that Van't is an article generally speaking, this is one that even my experiences had not led me into...so I am supposed to just accept someone who claims that it is on his say so...not I says he. Additionally the user offered NO specific documentation relating to the individual, again it was simply the users claim...so again am I going to accept...NO...no documentation no  yes vote simple. As much as I know about foreign names and cultures, I don't know EVERYTHING and never will, so don't expect or ask me to vote just on the basis a vaccuuous claim of fact made with no supporting documentation, I won't buy it. I am shocked that so many people are so willing to just blindly go along, like the martian discovered on his example.

I can understand the desire for correct documentation but I think there's also something like going overboard with that.

It's like asking a person to provide documentation for entering the word 'Captain' as a honorific for a credit that reads "Captain James West". Can you say with 100% certainty there isn't a person whose first name is Captain? In that case the parsing could even be Captain / James / West. Nobody asks that kind of documentation because the probability of Captain being a first name is so remote the question doesn't even arise.

Van 't is in the same category as the example above. The chances of this not being part of the last name is so infinetly small, nobody should even question it. It's when the data is entered the other way around (Van 't as not part of the last name) that questions should arise.

The difference is that the first example with 'Captain' stems from the English language and the second one (Van 't) stems from Dutch. Since most voters aren't familiar with Dutch, I can understand it may at seem as not such a clear-cut case, but for every Dutch-speaking person, it's just as clear as that English example.

In short:
- Someone enter Van 't in the last name field: I accept it without question as that is the general rule
- Someone enter Van 't in the middle name field: I would ask proof as it deviates from the general rule


Another important question is: did the original contributor who entered Van 't in the middle name field, provide any sort of documentation? He's actually the one who's deviating from the normal rule and I such, I believe the burden to provide proof rests on his shoulders rather than on the one changing a parsing to match the general rule for Dutch names.