1

I have an ancestor Charity Schufeldt (1792-1851, married Wait Hurlburt) that I am researching. To aid in my search, I'm looking for name variants for Schufeldt. So far I have Schufeldt, Zufelt, Shufelt that all appear to valid variations. I was interested if anyone had found any other variations of this surname.

Duncan
  • 3,745
  • 1
  • 16
  • 34
  • What techniques have you tried? http://resources.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/soundexconverter is one option. You've omitted Schufelt from your list which would seem an obvious option, as are Shufeld Shufeldt and Schufeld. http://genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/2026/how-can-i-identify-all-the-possible-alternatives-for-a-surname?rq=1 may also suggest some avenues. –  May 19 '13 at 13:49

2 Answers2

4

FamilySearch does a fairly good job of recognizing name variants, which in many cases can be rather difficult. They have a name grouping lookup page here, which for Schufeldt shows these names:

schoofield, schoohfield, schufeld, schufeldt, schufelt, sheufelt, shewfeld, shewfelt, shoofelt, shufalt, shufeld, shufeldt, shufelt, shufeltt, shufield, shufields, shufilt

They have a separate grouping for Zufelt:

zoofelt, zufalt, zufeld, zufelder, zufeldt, zufelt, zufield, zufled, zuflet, zufult

Another name-variant database can be queried on this WeRelate page.

When you're stuck for finding a name variant, this FamilySearch page gives some ideas about how to guess possibilities.

RobertShaw
  • 3,877
  • 13
  • 18
2

The technique that I proposed in https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/a/2033 gives the following:

Soundex Code for Schufeldt = S143

Other surnames sharing this Soundex Code: SAFFOLD | SCHOFIELD | SCOFIELD | SEABOLT | SEEFELDT | SEYBOLD | SHEFFIELD | SHIFFLETT | SHIFLET | SHIFLETT | SPALDING | SPAULDING | SUBLETT |

Community
  • 1
Fortiter
  • 13,336
  • 1
  • 20
  • 69
  • Could you also describe the technique here for brevity? Thanks. – Luke_0 May 20 '13 at 19:06
  • That would involve duplicating the answer as well as the question. I provided a link to avoid that. – Fortiter May 21 '13 at 11:30
  • There's really nothing wrong with explaining the same technique in two different answers. It saves time on the part of those who are reading the answer. – Luke_0 May 21 '13 at 13:54
  • Marking this question as a duplicate of http://genealogy.stackexchange.com/q/2026 would also save time for readers but that does not seem to have been considered. – Fortiter May 22 '13 at 12:19