Mother in laws
Keith Nuttle
I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
is living with her son.
i.e.
Jim Jones B 1803;
Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
enter as the name of her husband?
Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
JYoun...@aol.com
Keith-
I wouldn't assume she is NOT a JONES either. I once did research
for a person trying to learn the maiden name of her ancestor and the
mother-in-law was in the household on a census listing and her name
was listed as WATSON--same of the woman's married name. A bit more
research proved there had been a cousin marriage and, indeed, her
name was WATSON also.
Joan
J. Hugh Sullivan
Don't you need to know if she was married first? Base born children
usually were given the mother's maiden name. That sometimes changed
when and if the mother married.
Hugh
Gerry
First in your example is it not a mother living with her son-in-law,
and shouldn't her surname be different than Jim's? If the surnames
are the same then more likely she's Jim's step-mother, rather than
mother-in-law, unless at that time the two terms were
interchangeable.
When I have this situation where the first name of an individual is
unknown I enter Unk. (Mr.) Jones, and when a woman's first name is
also unknown I enter Unk. (Miss), I have used [Unknown] (unknown
with left and right brackets) when the surname is unknown. My
genealogy program has a feature where it remembers surnames so
whenever I have an unknown surname I only have to enter a left
bracket and it fills is the rest.
Gerry <Mee...@Three.com>
Bob Melson
What's the wife's/daughter's maiden name? Absent that knowledge,
how 'bout "LNU" or a blank?
Shameless Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big
enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson
Bob Melson <amia...@mypacks.net>
Pat...@aol.com
> have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> is living with her son.
> i.e.
> Jim Jones B 1803;
> Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
>
> Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
> enter as the name of her husband?
>
I think this is a census misunderstanding. Wife gives the name of
her husband as Jim Jones. She says my mother-in-law is Mary Jones.
Ergo, Mary Jones is listed as mother-in-law.
Patrick Eagan
In situations such as these I assign a surname as UNKNOWN, i.e.
Mary UNKNOWN.
Padraic
Mick
> I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> is living with her son.
> i.e.
> Jim Jones B 1803;
> Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
>
> Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
> enter as the name of her husband?
Until you find his full name, 'Mr. Jones' ??
> Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
Be cautious, in-law didn't always mean what it is assumed to mean
today. Check the relationship first.
Steve W. Jackson
To be completely correct, the plural is mothers-in-law. :-)
I usually leave the first name field empty in such cases, though I
frequently put "Unknown" when I don't know a surname. So in my own
records for a situation like this one, I'd most likely enter "Jones"
for his father and "Mary Unknown" for his mother.
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
"Steve W. Jackson" <stevew...@knology.net>
bob gillis
> I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> is living with her son.
> i.e.
> Jim Jones B 1803;
> Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
>
> Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
> enter as the name of her husband?
>
> Keith Nuttle
Leave her surname blank. When you find the birth surname of Mrs Jim
Jones you can add a married name. Then search the Census for the
area say 1830 on for Jones and her married surname..
Of course if Jim Jones married Elizabeth Jones, the her married name
would be Jones.
bob gillis
bob gillis <robert...@verizon.net>
Donna (History Buff) M. St. Felix
> I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> is living with her son. i.e. Jim Jones B 1803; Mary Jones B:1780
> mother-in-law.
>
> Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
> enter as the name of her husband?
>
Rules were different way back. MAYBE they are both a Jones.
Widmerpole
> I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> is living with her son.
> i.e.
> Jim Jones B 1803;
> Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
>
> enter as the name of her husband?
>
I'm sure someone with more knowledge will respond also, but I
believe in the timeframe you're mentioning the term "in-law" could
also mean a step relationship. So in this case, Mary Jones could be
the stepmother of Jim Jones rather than his wife's mother.
Jennifer
Widmerpole <clar...@aol.com>
Lisa Lepore
> I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> is living with her son.
> i.e.
> Jim Jones B 1803;
> Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
>
> enter as the name of her husband?
>
We've had this discussion may times -
what name to use for someone whose
last name is unknown.
I use Unknown.
We are told that the accepted practice for a
person with no last name is to enter it as
[--?--] or something similar. Apparently, some
genealogy programs will do this automatically
when a last name is missing.
People do all kinds of things to identify the person
as being part of Jim Jones' family like
Mary [Motherinlaw of Jim Jones]
If you only have one Jim Jones, this might work for
you, but I have not found that to be much of an improvement,
since I have many people of the same name in my tree, so
it doesn't help me much.
The simplest way is to give her the last name of unknown.
That way, you know you have to find her name, and you
also know that you didn't omit her name by accident when
you were entering your data.
My 2 cents,
JYoun...@aol.com
> What's the wife's/daughter's maiden name? Absent that knowledge,
> how 'bout "LNU" or a blank?
>
Anyone considering using some symbols or acronym for an unknown
surname, should first read the following article in the RootsWeb
Review archives entitle In Search of the Wild LNUs:
http://ftp.rootsweb.ancestry.com/pub/review/20030827.txt
Joan
Keith Nuttle
> lle...@comcast.net
Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question in
the since there is no standard answer.
As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys
in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I
identify Mary as Mary Unknown.
I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the
example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary
JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family
specifically Jim.
I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last
name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting.
Again thank you for assistance with my question.
Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
NBB...@aol.com
I would use Mary JONES* to indicate that Jones probably is not her
maiden name. My genealogy program would then sort it at the end of
the JONESes.
J. Hugh Sullivan
In spite of all the suggestions for "unknown" I use ??? when either
name is unknown. Missing last names show up first on the alpha
listing and there is no doubt about what is missing.
I don't like explanations vice names - inconsistencies in lists bug
me.
Hugh
Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)
singhals
> I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> is living with her son.
> i.e.
> Jim Jones B 1803;
> Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
>
> Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
> enter as the name of her husband?
>
> Keith Nuttle
She's Mary (Unknown) and he's (Mr) Jones. I use Mr. or Miss to
differentiate an unknown male from an unknown female.
Now, whether she is actually Jim's wife's mother rather than Jim's
dad's 2nd wife -- beyond the scope of your question. (g)
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Steve Hayes
Nothing, until you find out.
Her husband might be Jim's father, or might be his wife's father.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com>
Laurie Nelson
> > > I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> > > is living with her son.
> > > i.e.
> > > Jim Jones B 1803;
> > > Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
> > >
> > > Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
> > > enter as the name of her husband?
> > >
> > > Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> > what name to use for someone whose
> > last name is unknown.
> >
> > I use Unknown.
> >
> > We are told that the accepted practice for a person with no last
> > name is to enter it as [--?--] or something similar. Apparently,
> > some genealogy programs will do this automatically when a last name
> > is missing.
> >
> > People do all kinds of things to identify the person
> > as being part of Jim Jones' family like
> > Mary [Motherinlaw of Jim Jones]
> >
> > If you only have one Jim Jones, this might work for
> > you, but I have not found that to be much of an improvement,
> > since I have many people of the same name in my tree, so
> > it doesn't help me much.
> >
> > The simplest way is to give her the last name of unknown.
> > That way, you know you have to find her name, and you
> > also know that you didn't omit her name by accident when
> > you were entering your data.
> >
> > Lisa <lle...@comcast.net>
>
> the since there is no standard answer.
>
> As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys
> in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I
> identify Mary as Mary Unknown.
>
> I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the
> example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary
> JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family
> specifically Jim.
>
> I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last
> name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting.
>
Keith, if you can stand one more response, several years ago I
adopted a method suggested by another user of my genealogy program
to indicate women with an unknown maiden name.
For her surname, I would put ______ (Jones) [I always use 6
underlines to keep it consistent.] The person suggesting it said
that, when she took her data to a family reunion or mailed it to
someone, they could see immediately that the person's maiden name
was missing and often filled it in. This has worked very well for
me until I found the woman's surname.
Laurie Nelson
"Laurie Nelson" <lanen...@msn.com>
Bob Melson
Well, I don't know. Given the seeming ubiquity of LNU for an
unknown last name, the suggestion seem relatively harmless. Given,
too, the lack of consensus on the "proper" way to indicate that
unknown last name, I have to say this comment strikes me as
pettifoggery.
Sun-tanned Ol' Bob
singhals
Oh, Lord, PLEASE don't use (parens) on anything but the maiden name!
The (parens) for maiden name was the standard or norm or preferred
practice back in the 1950s (well before I started my genealogy), and
far's I know still is. Using it for anything else is guaranteed to
confuse someone somewhere down the line. And future generations
seem to be easy enough to confuse even when we go out of our way to
KISS it for them!
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
JYoun...@aol.com
> Well, I don't know. Given the seeming ubiquity of LNU for an
> unknown last name, the suggestion seem relatively harmless.
> Given, too, the lack of consensus on the "proper" way to indicate
> that unknown last name, I have to say this comment strikes me as
> pettifoggery.
>
> Sun-tanned Ol' Bob
Bob-
It may seem HARMLESS until you are confronted with thousands of
Newbie (and some not so Newbie) genealogists searching for years in
vain for the LNU ancestors. I even had one gal tell me she never
realized she had Mandarin Chinese ancestors until she found FNU LNU
and figured it was a Chinese ancestor. For about a year (until the
board was eventually put out of its misery) I adminned the LNU
message board at RootsWeb and dutifully wrote to all the posters
letting them know they were probably searching in vain for their
wild LNUs.
Joan
Gene Y.
My 2c worth.
I use Legacy to record my information. In Legacy the use of [[ ]]
around an entry marks it as private, meaning that you can see it all
the time but it doesn't print or export to web pages. I use it to
indicate who the "Mary" unknown is married to eg; Mary [[JONES]].
Legacy allows you to easily see which jones and it lowers the
incidence of identical unknowns. It works well for me and I don't
have non-standard formats exporting for people to "snipe" at.
--
Gene Y.
n2kvs
Researching Young, Zies, Harer & Cox with
Legacy Family Tree
http://h1.ripway.com/egptech/
"Gene Y." <n2...@cfl.rr.com>
D. Stussy
"Keith Nuttle" <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> > > is living with her son.
> > > i.e.
> > > Jim Jones B 1803;
> > > Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
> > >
> > > Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
> > > enter as the name of her husband?
> > >
> > > Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> > We've had this discussion may times -
> > what name to use for someone whose
> > last name is unknown.
> >
> > I use Unknown.
Very BAD.
I have seen others who do that then pass on their data to other
researchers. The other researchers, not speaking the same language,
think it's a real surname. I have seen this happen for "unbekannt",
German for unknown. This is no different than using the acronym
"LNU".
> > We are told that the accepted practice for a person with no last
> > name is to enter it as [--?--] or something similar. Apparently,
> > some genealogy programs will do this automatically when a last name
> > is missing.
I use a single question mark, separated by spaces on either side, to
indicate this. A question mark adjacent to a name without a space
expresses uncertainty about that name. A question mark adjacent to
a parenthetical grouping of multi-word names expresses doubt about
the entire entry enclosed.
I use a single dash as a placeholder for a given name when no name
was ever assigned. Don't use "unnamed" for the same reason as
above.
> > People do all kinds of things to identify the person
> > as being part of Jim Jones' family like
> > Mary [Motherinlaw of Jim Jones]
> >
> > If you only have one Jim Jones, this might work for
> > you, but I have not found that to be much of an improvement,
> > since I have many people of the same name in my tree, so
> > it doesn't help me much.
> >
> > The simplest way is to give her the last name of unknown.
> > That way, you know you have to find her name, and you
> > also know that you didn't omit her name by accident when
> > you were entering your data.
> >
> > Lisa <lle...@comcast.net>
>
> Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question in
> the since there is no standard answer.
>
> As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys
> in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I
> identify Mary as Mary Unknown.
>
> I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the
> example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary
> JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family
> specifically Jim.
>
> I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last
> name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting.
>
> Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
The usage of any TEXT (i.e. alphabetics) as a placeholder for an
unknown value is dangerous. Much (if not all) software treats text
as a real entry. You don't want such entries to be returned in
queries such as "give me all surnames that have a U in them". A
non-alphabetic placeholder is the only valid solution to avoid such
problems.
D. Stussy
Since all women are supposed be listed by maiden name* in any given
database, why would this yield a problem?
I am quite aware that genealogy books will print maiden names in
parentheses to separate and distinguish them from married names, but
that's not quite the same thing as they LACKED the database format
that is used today.
* - Actually, all people should be listed under their birth name as
their main entry. All other names are merely alternates (or
footnotes).
"D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Ian Goddard
> I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> is living with her son.
> i.e.
> Jim Jones B 1803;
> Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
>
> Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
> enter as the name of her husband?
>
> Keith Nuttle
Whatever name he has when (if!) you find him. Until then don't even
list a husband for her. As things stand you have no evidence that
she even had one.
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
cecilia
Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> [...]
> I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the
> example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary
> JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family
> specifically Jim. [...]
Likewise, I find that indicating, for those for whom I know no
dates, in either the name suffix or the birth location, remarks such
as "child born 1825", "mother born 1767", "grandson born 1852" can
help give me a feel of when the person lived as I potter through a
tree.
"Misusing" fields in this way may not be to everyone's taste, of
course.
my...@ic24.net (cecilia)
donkelly
> > I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> > is living with her son.
> > i.e.
> > Jim Jones B 1803;
> > Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
> >
> > Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
> > enter as the name of her husband?
> >
> > Keith Nuttle
>
> Whatever name he has when (if!) you find him. Until then don't even
> list a husband for her. As things stand you have no evidence that
> she even had one.
>
> Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
> at nildram co uk
Jones with a notation?
Bob Melson
> <snip>
> Bob-
>
> It may seem HARMLESS until you are confronted with thousands of
> Newbie (and some not so Newbie) genealogists searching for years in
> vain for the LNU ancestors. I even had one gal tell me she never
> realized she had Mandarin Chinese ancestors until she found FNU LNU
> and figured it was a Chinese ancestor. For about a year (until the
> board was eventually put out of its misery) I adminned the LNU
> message board at RootsWeb and dutifully wrote to all the posters
> letting them know they were probably searching in vain for their
> wild LNUs.
>
> Joan <JYoun...@aol.com>
Joan,
Believe me, I do understand that human stupidity has no limits - I
learned the hard way while doing tech support at IBM in the early
'90s, I won't regale you with my favorite stories, however; suffice
to say they amply illustrate the point.
But the present case seems to me to be somewhat otherwise, given the
lack of consensus on the right and proper way, however you wish to
define right and proper, to indicate unknown name elements. In many
ways, it seems to be a High Church/Low Church or big-endian/
little-endian argument with no hope of resolution. The lack of
consensus is clearly illustrated by the article you originally
cited, with no one method clearly favored.
What do _I_ use? I leave the unknown portion of the name blank.
Why? Because I don't like any of the other alternatives, including
FNU. That said, methinks the right answer to the OP is "whatever
works for you, but be ready to explain yourself".
Swell Ol' Bob
Ian Goddard
D. Stussy wrote:
> * - Actually, all people should be listed under their birth name as
> their main entry. All other names are merely alternates (or
> footnotes).
And what would you do if you don't, as in the OP's case, know their
birth name? Ignore the individuals?
You can only list the evidence you've got.
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
singhals
D. Stussy wrote (after all the other posts ... )
>>"Cheryl Singhals" <sing...@erols.com>
>
> Since all women are supposed be listed by maiden name* in any given
> database, why would this yield a problem?
Because Mary --?-- (Jones) is ambiguous to a newbie. A newbie
probably won't notice the difference between ( [ and { either. My
personal genie program has a suffix field; I use it for things like
DD MD DDS and the like, but I know people who put married names in
there...and I think it's ambiguous.
Let's say that Mary --?-- married (1) Jim Johnstone and had issue,
(2) Sam Smith, and had issue, and (3) Bob Jones, no issue. And the
print-out says she's Mary (Jones). Sam and Jim and their
descendants are out in the cold gloom of night and well out of sight
of any searchers.
> I am quite aware that genealogy books will print maiden names in
> parentheses to separate and distinguish them from married names, but
> that's not quite the same thing as they LACKED the database format
> that is used today.
But, lacking an electronic database format doesn't mean
they lacked filing systems and databases of a sort.
> * - Actually, all people should be listed under their birth name as
> their main entry. All other names are merely alternates (or
> footnotes).
A smidge ethnocentric, isn't it? AmerInds apparently changed their
name rather frequently as they went through life. No point in
showing that Gurgling Brave died at the age of 103, when he was
known as Silver Wolf at the time of his death. Then, wandering back
to European traditions, the birth name of an adopted child might not
be known since she used her adoptive name all her life.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Laurie Nelson
Cheryl, I have a Readme in my genealogy program (RootsMagic) that
lists all the conventions I use, including the one for an unknown
maiden name. If people who use my data don't like my conventions,
they can change them. It's taken me several years to decide on the
conventions I use, and they work for me. Sorry if I don't care
whether they work for someone else. I don't like the conventions
others use either; if I copy their data until I can research and
verify it, I change it to my liking.
Laurie Nelson
P.S. The way I have a Readme is to create an individual named "#READ
ME" in the Surname field and "Important Information in Note - " in
the Given Name(s) field. My conventions are listed in the note for
the "person."
"Laurie Nelson" <lanen...@msn.com>
Ian Goddard
> > I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law
> > is living with her son.
> > i.e.
> > Jim Jones B 1803;
> > Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law.
> >
> > Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you
> > enter as the name of her husband?
> >
> > Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
>
> and shouldn't her surname be different than Jim's? If the surnames
> are the same then more likely she's Jim's step-mother, rather than
> mother-in-law, unless at that time the two terms were
> interchangeable.
>
> Gerry
ISTR that there was some discussion about this in relation to
brother-in-law in s.g.britain some time ago and it appeared that in
fact --in-law in the past could be the same as step- in current
usage.
JYoun...@aol.com
> The lack of consensus is clearly illustrated by the article you
> originally cited, with no one method clearly favored.
>
> What do _I_ use? I leave the unknown portion of the name blank.
> Why? Because I don't like any of the other alternatives, including
> FNU. That said, methinks the right answer to the OP is "whatever
> works for you, but be ready to explain yourself".
>
Bob-
The article DOES explain what is preferred while acknowledging that
many people do not use it or know of it.
I'd accept your "whatever works for you" advice provided you are not
preparing your file for anyone other than YOU to use or view. If
others are to use it or even SEE it -- they are not going to come to
you necessarily for an explanation of your display methods...they
are going to draw their own, probably incorrect conclusions and
base their file upon their misconceptions.
Joan
J. Hugh Sullivan
> Because Mary --?-- (Jones) is ambiguous to a newbie. A newbie
> probably won't notice the difference between ( [ and { either. My
> personal genie program has a suffix field; I use it for things like
> DD MD DDS and the like, but I know people who put married names in
> there...and I think it's ambiguous.
>
How 'bout CDR?
On second thought forget it - I'm not in your data base!
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
> > <snip>
> >
> > Bob-
> >
> > It may seem HARMLESS until you are confronted with thousands of
> > Newbie (and some not so Newbie) genealogists searching for years in
> > vain for the LNU ancestors. I even had one gal tell me she never
> > realized she had Mandarin Chinese ancestors until she found FNU LNU
> > and figured it was a Chinese ancestor. For about a year (until the
> > board was eventually put out of its misery) I adminned the LNU
> > message board at RootsWeb and dutifully wrote to all the posters
> > letting them know they were probably searching in vain for their
> > wild LNUs.
> >
> > Joan <JYoun...@aol.com>
>
> learned the hard way while doing tech support at IBM in the early
> '90s, I won't regale you with my favorite stories, however; suffice
> to say they amply illustrate the point.
>
> But the present case seems to me to be somewhat otherwise, given the
> lack of consensus on the right and proper way, however you wish to
> define right and proper, to indicate unknown name elements. In many
> ways, it seems to be a High Church/Low Church or big-endian/
> little-endian argument with no hope of resolution. The lack of
> consensus is clearly illustrated by the article you originally
> cited, with no one method clearly favored.
>
> What do _I_ use? I leave the unknown portion of the name blank.
> Why? Because I don't like any of the other alternatives, including
> FNU. That said, methinks the right answer to the OP is "whatever
> works for you, but be ready to explain yourself".
>
I thought it was Sweet Ol' Bob, nevertheless...
I recognize the use of "Unknown" so all of them wind up in the "U"
section of an alpha listing BUT
in your personal opinion why would you not use ? or ??? for unknown?
I deplore filling the blanks with "good intentions".
Don't hold back - I'm used to comments from Sweet Ol' Bobs! 8-)
singhals
Whatever floats your boat.
Although, it seems to me putting that boilerplate into each note to
explain something is a lot of needlessly redundant effort when one
/could/ just use commonly recognized (if not universally agreed-upon)
conventions. But, then again, it's your database.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Bob Melson
Hugh,
I generally leave the unknown portion blank, as I said. I do so
because it unambiguously "records" the lack of information, unlike
acronyms or the various punctuation options - IMO, it's kinda hard
to misinterpret a blank.
(p)Sychotic Ol' Bob
Keith Nuttle
OP: This was the point of my original question. The use of any
standard characters puts all of these people in the same place in
the index, whether it is at the beginning of the index as ?? or
Unknown.
I was trying to find an acceptable way to tie these people to the
family they belong without knowing their name.
Some times when doing research you find Mary "mother of James Jones"
in other documents, Having them in an index quickly identifies
whether you have previously found James Jones's mother's first name.
What every you do, you need a place to start collecting information,
birth place, date of birth, etc., about Mary "Mother of James Jones"
even though you don't know her maiden name.
One of those place where you find information on unknown parents is
in the US census. In the census for several years the place of the
parents birth is shown without names, It would be nice to have this
information easily available. (James's birthplace may not be his
parent's birthplace.)
Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
Bob Melson
JYoun...@aol.com (JYoun...@aol.com) opined:
>> The lack of consensus is clearly illustrated by the article you
>> originally cited, with no one method clearly favored.
>>
>> What do _I_ use? I leave the unknown portion of the name blank.
>> Why? Because I don't like any of the other alternatives, including
>> FNU. That said, methinks the right answer to the OP is "whatever
>> works for you, but be ready to explain yourself".
>>
>> Swell Ol' Bob <amia...@mypacks.net>
>
> Bob-
>
> The article DOES explain what is preferred while acknowledging that
> many people do not use it or know of it.
As with so many other things, this is one person's (the article's
author) idea of the ideal. Unfortunately, though, this idea is not
supported by practice .. umm, more honored in the breach than the
observance.
> I'd accept your "whatever works for you" advice provided you are not
> preparing your file for anyone other than YOU to use or view. If
> others are to use it or even SEE it -- they are not going to come to
> you necessarily for an explanation of your display methods...they
> are going to draw their own, probably incorrect conclusions and
> base their file upon their misconceptions.
Don't you think a lot depends on whom things are being prepared for?
If I'm trading information with my cousin, she's likely to already
know that we're not descended from the ancient FNU tribe. On the
other hand, if I'm publishing on, say, RootsWeb, I'm inclined to (1)
look at what's already there for guidance and (2) ask what they
prefer (get their style manual, in other words). I'd no more
consider publishing my genealogical data without finding out the
publisher's style preferences than I would a technical or
professional paper without finding out whether they prefer the APA
or Chicago style manuals.
I certainly won't claim that there's one right way to do things. I
will ask, though, what makes the way you've adopted the right one?
The article you cite is one person's opinion .. two, maybe, counting
you .. but has no force otherwise. Yes, it's great to have
standards, but those standards are usually arrived at by consensus,
not by fiat (or chrysler ;-D ). It's clear - to me, at least - that
the article was an attempt to impose a standard by fiat in an area
where there was no consensus at the time of writing and no consensus
today.
> Joan <JYoun...@aol.com>
Stubborn Ol' Bob
singhals
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> > Because Mary --?-- (Jones) is ambiguous to a newbie. A newbie
> > probably won't notice the difference between ( [ and { either. My
> > personal genie program has a suffix field; I use it for things like
> > DD MD DDS and the like, but I know people who put married names in
> > there...and I think it's ambiguous.
> >
> > Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>
> How 'bout CDR?
I have /no/ truck with CDRs. I've moved on to DVDs now. ;)
> On second thought forget it - I'm not in your data base!
For these small mercies, Lord, we are truly grateful.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
J. Hugh Sullivan
> I generally leave the unknown portion blank, as I said. I do so
> because it unambiguously "records" the lack of information, unlike
> acronyms or the various punctuation options - IMO, it's kinda hard
> to misinterpret a blank.
>
Where does the name wind up in an alpha listing?
And the first letter of your name above is silent - like the "p" in
swimming! 8-)
Laurie Nelson
>
>Whatever floats your boat.
>
>Although, it seems to me putting that boilerplate into each note to
>explain something is a lot of needlessly redundant effort when one
>/could/ just use commonly recognized (if not universally agreed-upon)
>conventions. But, then again, it's your database.
>
Cheryl, you misunderstood. I don't put the boilerplate in each note
to explain it. I put the explanation ONLY in the note for the
individual I named "#README". It works for me and that's all that
counts. If I have to deal with unexplained garbage from other
people (as I have in the past), they can deal with my conventions
that are totally explained in the "#README" note. BTW it seems few
people are researching the same names I am so it's really a
non-issue for me.
Bob Melson
>> I generally leave the unknown portion blank, as I said. I do so
>> because it unambiguously "records" the lack of information, unlike
>> acronyms or the various punctuation options - IMO, it's kinda hard
>> to misinterpret a blank.
>>
>> (p)Sychotic Ol' Bob <amia...@mypacks.net>
>
> Where does the name wind up in an alpha listing?
>
In the two programs I'm most familiar with - gramps and phpGedView -
blank surnames end up in either (gramps) an unlabeled "name" or in
an "unknown", umm, collector. The only time a blank surname becomes
a problem is when there's insufficient information to distinguish
between Mary and Mary and that's not usually a problem because
they're married to/partnered with a different man or their kids'
names are different or they're from different places. That's to
say, there's some point of discrimination. As well, each has
received a different "I" number at the time of entry. Admittedly, it
ain't perfect but it works without recourse to brackets, braces, em
dashes, multiple question marks or acronyms.
And this, I think, is the crux of the problem/discussion. There IS
NO standard in this area, no consensus, as even Joan's cited article
indicates. What works for me might not work for you and vice versa
and what WE find useful might not be for the OP. While I believe
leaving the unknown part or parts of the name blank is less prone to
error or misinterpretation, I don't feel strongly enough about the
matter to want to fall on my sword in its defense.
And a final observation. If there WERE a standard for this
particular question, don't you think the multiple genealogy programs
out there would force its use as a default? Mary doesn't have a
last name recorded? Insert [--??--]. No given name but a last name?
Insert [--??--]. Neither given nor surname? Easy, [--??--][--??--].
As I said somewhere earlier in this discussion, standards are
arrived at by consensus; so far as I can tell, th'ain't no sech
animal in this case and I kinda hope that remains the case.
Slippery Ol' Bob
J. Hugh Sullivan
Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I thought it was Sweet Ol' Bob, nevertheless...
>>
>> I recognize the use of "Unknown" so all of them wind up in the "U"
>> section of an alpha listing BUT
>>
>> in your personal opinion why would you not use ? or ??? for unknown?
>>
>> I deplore filling the blanks with "good intentions".
>>
>> Don't hold back - I'm used to comments from Sweet Ol' Bobs! 8-)
>>
>> Hugh <Ea...@bellsouth.net> (J. Hugh Sullivan)
>
>OP: This was the point of my original question. The use of any
>standard characters puts all of these people in the same place in
>the index, whether it is at the beginning of the index as ?? or
>Unknown.
>
>I was trying to find an acceptable way to tie these people to the
>family they belong without knowing their name.
>
>Some times when doing research you find Mary "mother of James Jones"
>in other documents, Having them in an index quickly identifies
>whether you have previously found James Jones's mother's first name.
Unless, of course, you have more than one James Jones so research is
still necessary. And "mother of" would not be in the "J" group, i.
e., not adjacent.
If she is linked to James Jones in the data base a double click on
either name will take you directly to the family.
>What every you do, you need a place to start collecting information,
>birth place, date of birth, etc., about Mary "Mother of James Jones"
>even though you don't know her maiden name.
>
>One of those place where you find information on unknown parents is
>in the US census. In the census for several years the place of the
>parents birth is shown without names, It would be nice to have this
>information easily available. (James's birthplace may not be his
>parent's birthplace.)
>
>Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
Seems like the options are (a) to use some standard form for lack of
name (b) to use some personalized form.
Which to use might depend upon how widely your database is
distributed. If widely used it should probably be less personalized.
My starting point would probably be that I am not likely to find the
maiden name of a female except by luck or the data base of another -
at least not prior to 1900. So I would use a consistent, recoognized
method.
However I don't share my data base except one on one and for a
person's direct line. So I could personalize all I wish.
Since we will never get out of this world alive I would recommend as
much standardization as possible with deviations explined by the use
of notes. That should not confuse anyone who doesn't start off
confused.
A female living with a male doesn't allow one to make observations
unless the data is furnished. A female could be the wed or unwed
mother or step-mother - or various other relationships depending on
age differentials.
And once you have more than 5,000 or so names it rarely matters unless
it is direct line.
bob gillis
Keith Nuttle wrote:
snip
> OP: This was the point of my original question. The use of any
> standard characters puts all of these people in the same place in
> the index, whether it is at the beginning of the index as ?? or
> Unknown.
IN TMG, a blank surname sorts at the beginning of the Pick List and
Project Explorer.
> I was trying to find an acceptable way to tie these people to the
> family they belong without knowing their name.
And undoubtedly you know the married name of the person; that wail
also appear in the Pick List and Project Explorer. If your program
does not allow multiple names, especially married names then I
recommend getting a program that will.
bob gillis
bob gillis <robert...@verizon.net>
Steve Hayes
> In the two programs I'm most familiar with - gramps and phpGedView -
> blank surnames end up in either (gramps) an unlabeled "name" or in
> an "unknown", umm, collector. The only time a blank surname becomes
> a problem is when there's insufficient information to distinguish
> between Mary and Mary and that's not usually a problem because
> they're married to/partnered with a different man or their kids'
> names are different or they're from different places. That's to
> say, there's some point of discrimination. As well, each has
> received a different "I" number at the time of entry. Admittedly, it
> ain't perfect but it works without recourse to brackets, braces, em
> dashes, multiple question marks or acronyms.
>
That's true of most programs I'm familiar with. I once tried Family
Tree Maker, however, and it did not seem to display or print the
record numbers that could be used to distinguish such people, which
was one of the reasons I stopped using it.
I wonder how many of the people who have problems with this are
users of FTM?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com>
Ian Goddard
> As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys
> in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I
> identify Mary as Mary Unknown.
>
If you have several Marys not traceable to family then you have
several Marys not traceable to family. There's no getting around
it.
I think you have several separate issues. One is data & another is
presentation.
From a data point of view good /database/ practice would be to leave
a null which is distinct from an empty string or a string filled
with spaces and simply means that the data isn't known. It's
possible your application's underlying database engine won't support
this. And probable that you won't be able to find out!
Nevertheless the closest you'll be able to get to this is to leave
the surname empty if you don't know it - with luck this will be
treated as null and is the closest you'll get if it isn't.
The presentation issue depends on the application you're dealing
with. If display, reports etc. are configurable you might be able to
make the application default to some other name if the birth name
isn't known. There may be other options.
Gramps, for instance, has provision for multiple names and the
ability to specify one of several types against each name and to
designate one as the preferred name which will be used in displays
and reports. Using such a scheme could initially set the preferred
name as Mary Jones and flag it as a married or unknown type,
switching the preferred name to her birth name if and when you
discover the correct surname.
Another facility with Gramps is the provision of a field called
"Call name". You could set this up as "Mary MiL of Jim Jones" and
add the field to the display. Even if you leave the preferred name
as the baptismal name with a blank this will still allow you to see
which Mary is which. This approach would also allow you to
distinguish between people with the same name, for instance "Jim
Jones I", "Jim Jones II" etc.
The biggest issue which another posting has touched on is the fact
that expecting a surname, especially one with a standard spelling,
is historically and culturally naive. I have several lines where
surnames are very variable in spelling even in recent times and I'm
pretty sure my own surname started with a single "d" in the middle.
In earlier times there were all sorts of patronymics and other
epithets in use. What do you do with an individual who was described
in the witness list of one deed as "Edmund the tanner" and in
another, drawn up on the same day, as "Edmund the barker"? A
capable genealogical program should be able to handle such
situations gracefully without twisting either the data or the
program out of shape.
Mick
I actually have a 3G Grandfather in St.Giles who in various
documents Census, Marriage and Death was spelled variously Garling
Girling and Gurling. Probably all arising from the fact that as a
Costermonger he was illiterate to the transcriber would spell it
partly by his own bias and partly by the accent of the Informant.
Fortunately Gramps does allow for this as described But other
Genealogy programs do have an 'also known as' field.
Mickg
Mick <mic...@verizon.net>