Should John Smith y V read family y? #1098

Without a comma, a single-letter connective that P3 leaves unjoined in a short name counts as a word to spare for the one-letter roman numeral behind it, so the numeral reads as the generation and the connective becomes the whole family name:

On master a two-letter numeral reads this way too: John Smith y VI reads family y, suffix VI since #893, where 1.4.0 through 2.8.2 read family Smith y VI.

#1093 decided that before a family comma the count counts name words only, a connective being none (rules/S10). The comma-less name is the trailing peel's count, a separate site, and it still counts the unjoined connective. A connective as the whole family name connects nothing, which is the reason P3 gives for a generational connective with nothing on its right.

Where it comes from

P3's carve-out leaves y unjoined (fewer than four root words once the numeral is counted out as the generation), and the trailing peel's words-to-spare count (S10, S4) then counts it as a name word.

Open questions

1. Direction: keep the letter as the family (John Smith y V → family Smith y V), as the family-comma part now reads, or keep the suffix and give the family back to Smith (middle y?).
2. VI: Should Smith y V, John keep the V in the family name, as Smith Jones y V, John does? #1093 decided a two-letter numeral is the generation after a connective. That leaves John Smith y VI with family y. Should the connective then join nothing and fall to the middle name, or be read as part of the family Smith y?
3. Where it is stated: S10's comma-less count beside the family-comma clause, so that one sentence covers both sites?