Genealogy software
SC
in his 60's and not the best computer user around, but gets by.
Freeware would be nice, as long it is aimed at the UK and not too
americanised.
TIA
--
S.C.
A : Top Posting
Q : What annoys you about Usenet?
michael kenefick
SC wrote:
--
Please remove _nospam_ from email to respond.
Elizabeth
spell check for locations is only for America. Dates isnt a prob as it says
3 apr 1940 unlike american was of putting dates 4/3/1940 in Australia and i
presume England the date should be written as 3/4/1940. Liz
"michael kenefick" <kene...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:404DBBD6...@copper.net...
Don Moody
<kene...@copper.net> writes
>Okay what exactly would be an Americanization of a computer program?
The color of the packaging, for a start?
Don
--
Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot, Devon,
England TQ12 6EY
Tel: +44(0) 1626 821725 Fax: +44(0) 1626 824912
Jim Pettit
> dates, spelling... I have legacy which is obviously an american program. The
> spell check for locations is only for America. Dates isnt a prob as it says
> 3 apr 1940 unlike american was of putting dates 4/3/1940 in Australia and i
> presume England the date should be written as 3/4/1940. Liz
Canada formally uses System International which is year.month.day e.g.
2004.03.11, though genealogists tend to use day, month in letters, year
as in 11 March 2004 to avoid confusion with the other systems. American
programs tend to Canadianize by giving us the British system which we
don't use rather than either of the two we do use.
R
download free software. It is large, about 7Meg I think, but is really good
and very easy to use. You set up the "PAF" program and it works similar to
DBase and automatically saves your files. The program is universal, hence
you can easily send the PAF data files for others to look at. Hope this
helps. Cheers Ron
"SC" <scotti...@hottishmail.com> wrote in message
news:1um9fqs4ot4fp.vyjm39vn1rjb$.dlg@40tude.net...
The General
> In message <404DBBD6...@copper.net>, michael kenefick
> <kene...@copper.net> writes
>
>> Okay what exactly would be an Americanization of a computer program?
>
>
> The color of the packaging, for a start?
>
> Don
Mick Gurling
"The General" <thegene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10d6na2...@corp.supernews.com...
Rick J
"Mick Gurling" <mi...@skyweb.net> wrote in message
news:It6dndayr-r...@skyweb.net...
bit obscure but I think attempt to be witty (color/colour)
>
>
Mick Gurling
"Rick J" <aifo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S84Bc.3046$T_1.41@clgrps12...
for marketers to use the flag wherever they can get away with is to boost
sales. It's the American way!
--
Mick G CT-USA
Researching:
Gorbals: Bryan, McDonald
Hereford: James, South, Yarranton.
St Giles in the Fields: Barnett, Bryan, Gurling, Holland, Ing, Yarranton.
Southwark: Quinton, Richards.
Stafford/Salop Belliston, Boycott, Cleary, Yorke
E-Traveller
all my family lines back to the UK and Ireland. When I bought FTM maker
about 6 years ago it came with a dozed CD's of information. Almost every bit
of the information was so American it was useless to me. According to the
inbuilt Family Finder in FTM I have dozens of relatives in Tennessee and
Virginia. I don't. I tried subscribing to Genealogy.com, same American base.
My subscription lapsed after Genealogy was absorbed by Ancestry and was
automaticaly renewed against my instuctions. A few emails and phone calls
later I told them I would continue my subscription if I had access to the UK
databases, they declined becauseI lived in Canada and would have American
ancestors, so we parted company.
I certainly have no objection to the American content of any kind, but I
certainly resented being told where my ancestors should be.
Jim
John Zillwood
<SNIP>
> me. According to the inbuilt Family Finder in FTM I have dozens of
> relatives in Tennessee and Virginia. I don't. I tried subscribing to
> Genealogy.com, same American base. My subscription lapsed after
> Genealogy was absorbed by Ancestry and was automaticaly renewed
> against my instuctions. A few emails and phone calls later I told
> them I would continue my subscription if I had access to the UK
> databases, they declined becauseI lived in Canada and would have
> American ancestors, so we parted company.
>
> I certainly have no objection to the American content of any kind,
> but I certainly resented being told where my ancestors should be.
Well I guess that they must think that British Columbia is in the UK as they
certainly didn't refuse my money for a sub to the UK data :-) The bit about
them declining your request for a UK subscription because you live in Canada
makes no sense whatever. Possibly you spoke to an agent that didn't have a
clue. I would think that a Canadian would be just as, if not more, likely
to have British ancestors rather than from the USA. Besides, lots of them
have British ancestors also. Just doesn't make any sense!
--
John Zillwood jo...@zillwood.com
Abbotsford Genealogical Society
http://www.rootsweb.com/~bcags/
Mick Gurling
"John Zillwood" <jo...@zillwood.com> wrote in message
news:y1rBc.836388$Ig.830528@pd7tw2no...
they
> certainly didn't refuse my money for a sub to the UK data :-) The bit
about
> them declining your request for a UK subscription because you live in
Canada
> makes no sense whatever. Possibly you spoke to an agent that didn't have
a
> clue. I would think that a Canadian would be just as, if not more, likely
> to have British ancestors rather than from the USA. Besides, lots of them
> have British ancestors also. Just doesn't make any sense!
>
> --
> John Zillwood jo...@zillwood.com
> Abbotsford Genealogical Society
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~bcags/
>
>
expensive subscription to be of zero value for UK researches as you can get
the same gata from other sources far cheaper.
Liz
Examples:
+ software wants us to write dates as month/day/year when we write
day/month/year
+ software wants us to use "Letter" sized paper but we use A4
+ address fields allow only two letters for the state and we need to enter 3
+ telephone number fields are preformatted so we can't enter ours
+ we are required to misspell words - 'color' instead of 'colour' etc.
+ wonderful resources are included in software but they are useless because
they don't cater for the world (outside America)
As far as genealogy software is concerned: I use Personal Ancestral File
and I have no problems with it as it is totally configurable. However, I
also own other programmes and have many CDs containing American data which I
will never use.
Also: genealogy websites such as Ancestry.com and Rootsweb cater well for
America but it's a waste of time looking for Australian events there.
do others agree?
"The General" <thegene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10d6na2...@corp.supernews.com...
Geoff Pearson
"Liz" <emha...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:iULOc.24971$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I am reasonably certain that the standard English usage when I was a boy
was "Americanized" - I don't know when "ised" came in.
michael kenefick
If you are really not going to use all those CDs you have. Send them to
me. They could have something for me to use. Mike
Liz wrote:
--
Wwftw
spellcheck plus a user add section, address and phone fields are free form,
cost is reasonable good suport :-)
Cheers Jenny
--
Researching; HAWKINS, CROXON, BOWERMAN in Essex,
MINERS, BEHENNA, BARKLE, in Cornwall,
FITCHETT, BUDDLE, in Derbyshire, and all The above in NEW ZEALAND, plus
those they may have married.
RootsMagic home page - http://www.rootsmagic.com/
Mick Gurling
> I am reasonably certain that the standard English usage when I was a boy
> was "Americanized" - I don't know when "ised" came in.
>
>
English Grammar So long as eople understand what your point is.....
Alun
q...@skyweb.net:
>>
>> I am reasonably certain that the standard English usage when I was a boy
>> was "Americanized" - I don't know when "ised" came in.
>>
>>
> I'm reasonably certain that the toic of this group is Genealogy and nor
> English Grammar So long as eople understand what your point is.....
"ised" is almost universally used in the UK and "ized" in America. Merriam-
Webster (an American dictionary) recommends "ize" endings with words taken
from Greek, and "ise" if they came from Latin, but real world usage is more
like what I have described, i.e. uniform throughout the UK or the US. This
may be less a matter of time, but instead one of place.
Of course, I am not sure which is more common or accepted in Ireland, let
alone any other English speaking countries. I myself am an Englishman
living in America, whose Irish ancestors emigrated to England!
Of course, I don't think that it matters which spelling you use as long as
you are understood. They should be considered to be variants, not right and
wrong.
Geoff Pearson
"Alun" <elek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953969A62B89...@130.133.1.4...
I should have made clear that I am English, living in Britain for the
last 55 years - somewhere in that time the "z" changed to "s" - Jane
Austen uses "z" so "s" is the interloper. I am just intrigued that it
happened, and to know why. I write "s" today but remember writing "z".
Chris Dickinson
>I should have made clear that I am English, living in Britain for the
>last 55 years - somewhere in that time the "z" changed to "s" - Jane
>Austen uses "z" so "s" is the interloper. I am just intrigued that it
>happened, and to know why. I write "s" today but remember writing "z".
As 'Alun' commented, the usage of 's' and 'z' originally depended on whether
the word had a Latin or Greek ending; and our usage reflected that. Now that
very few people have a knowledge of two classical languages, maintaining
such an inconvenient distinction is an absurdity - and spelling has evolved
sensibly. Just a shame that Americans tend to prefer 'z' and we prefer 's'!
Like you, I've changed from 'z' to 's' over the years - makes things a damn
sight easier. Of course, when in a few generations time, the same thing
happens to English as happened to French, and the world speaks Cantonese or
Mandarin rather than English, such discussions will appear very irrelevant
:-)
Chris
Geoff Pearson
"Chris Dickinson" <ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message
news:cem9ea$kcq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
With all due respect to posters, I cannot believe the Greek/Latin split
is at all right. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary shows "realize" as the
main spelling with also "realise" from Real + ize after French
realiser. Realize is the true older English spelling. Why did we
change and when, in the last 50 years?
Sir Ernest Gowers "The Complete Plain Words" says:
Ise or Ize
On the question whether verbs like organise and nouns like organisation
should be spelt with an s or a z the authorities differ. The O.E.D.
favours universal ize, arguing that the suffix is always in its origin
either Greek or Latin and in both languages it is spelt with a z. So do
the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge. Other authorities,
including some English printers, recommend universal ise. Fowler stands
between these two opinions. He points out that the O.E.D.'s advice
over-simplifies the problem, since there are some verbs (e.g. advertise,
comprise, despise, exercise and surmise) which are never spelt ize in
this country. On the other hand, he says "the difficulty of remembering
which these ise verbs are is the only reason for making ise universal,
and the sacrifice of significance to ease does not seem justified". This
austere conclusion will not commend itself to everyone. It does not do
so to the authors of the A.B.C. of English Usage, who say roundly, "the
advice given here is to end them all in ise", a verdict with which I
respectfully agree.
Alun
@uni-berlin.de:
Perhaps another point in favour of s is that the rune for z was borrowed to
represent x in English, with the rune for s doing double duty for the s and
z sounds. Hence, when switching to the Roman alphabet it would have been
transliterated as s irrespective of whether it represented s or z. Or am I
going too far back now?
Argyle
On 3-Aug-2004, "Geoff Pearson" <gspear...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ... Realize is the true older English spelling.
Are you telling us that we Yanks have been spelling it right all along? ;))
Is Mise Gan Ainm
citizens of the U.S.A., become 'Yanks' - I thought that
colloquialism applied only to those from Connecticut?
"Argyle" <Arg...@nowhere.xxx> wrote in message
news:l_2dnUuC77n...@adelphia.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.733 / Virus Database: 487 - Release Date:
08/02/2004
Chris Dickinson
Just been looking at my Compact Edition of the OED and, if I've understood
it right, the common meaning of to 'realise' today is meaning 3 - 'to
understand or grasp clearly' - rather than the earlier meanings on
variations of 'to make real'. Of this newer meaning of the word, the OED
states:
'In early use chiefly American, and frequently condemned as such by English
writers about the middle of the 19th c.'
So it's rather an American word!
Chris
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Just to change the subject discussion - when did are all
>citizens of the U.S.A., become 'Yanks' - I thought that
>colloquialism applied only to those from Connecticut?
No, those are Yankees.
Yanks is generic US, and may even include Canadians.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Bob
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 23:00:39 GMT, "Is Mise Gan Ainm" <nospa...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Just to change the subject discussion - when did are all
> >citizens of the U.S.A., become 'Yanks' - I thought that
> >colloquialism applied only to those from Connecticut?
>
> No, those are Yankees.
>
> Yanks is generic US, and may even include Canadians.
Don't tell that to the Canadians.
Bob, Nowra, NSW
Mick Gurling
"Is Mise Gan Ainm" <nospa...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:rUdQc.613$HSN1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Just to change the subject discussion - when did are all
> citizens of the U.S.A., become 'Yanks' - I thought that
> colloquialism applied only to those from Connecticut?
Nope Yankees come from New England if you accept their version, though many
southerners will tell you anyone beyond about 20 miles north of their home.
New England is:
Connecticut, Massachisetts, Maine, New Hamshire, Rhode Island, Vermont.
--
Mick G CT-USA
Is Mise Gan Ainm
My old Webster's dict. gives one meaning for Yank and
Yankee : a native of New England.
My Oxford states 'Yank' - 'Yankee' : 1. Often derogative 2.
US inhabitant of New England or one of the northern states.
3 hist. a federal soldier in the civil war. 4. A type of bet
on four or more horses to win or be placed.
18th c.origin uncertain, perhaps from Dutch 'Yanke',
diminutive of 'Jan' (John) attested (17th c.) as a nickname.
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4111b913....@news.saix.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.733 / Virus Database: 487 - Release Date:
08/03/2004
Graeme Wall
"Argyle" <Arg...@nowhere.xxx> wrote:
A lot of so-called American spellings are actually old English, the
Victorians had a good go at standardising[1] and prettyfying(?) spelling.
See Bill Bryson on the subject.
What are abominations are the pitiful attempts to produce 'trendy' spellings
such as kozee, eezee, kewl and so-on. Those truly are crimes against
(English) humanity.
[1] Should that be standardizing?
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Alun
$Ar.4...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
I would say that a Yankee is a New Englander if you are in another Northern
state, a Northerner if you are in the Southern US, and an American if you
are outside the US. I don't see how anyone ought to complain if it is used
in any of those ways, but I agree that Canadians have a right to be annoyed
if it's applied to them.
Argyle
On 5-Aug-2004, Alun <elek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would say that a Yankee is a New Englander if you are in another
> Northern
> state, a Northerner if you are in the Southern US, and an American if you
> are outside the US. I don't see how anyone ought to complain if it is used
>
> in any of those ways, but I agree that Canadians have a right to be
> annoyed
> if it's applied to them.
I'm a Maine Yankee and proud of it! ;)
Steve Hayes
>
>"Is Mise Gan Ainm" <nospa...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:rUdQc.613$HSN1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> Just to change the subject discussion - when did are all
>> citizens of the U.S.A., become 'Yanks' - I thought that
>> colloquialism applied only to those from Connecticut?
>
>Nope Yankees come from New England if you accept their version, though many
>southerners will tell you anyone beyond about 20 miles north of their home.
A bit like wogs in England. They come from south of the Trent if you live
north of it, and begin at Calais if you live south of it.
Steve Hayes
>haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<4111b913....@news.saix.net>...
>> Yanks is generic US, and may even include Canadians.
>
>Don't tell that to the Canadians.
There was a Canadian at school with me.
We all knew he was Canadian, and we all called him "the Yank".
Skitt
> (Bob) wrote:
>> (Steve Hayes) wrote:
>>> Yanks is generic US, and may even include Canadians.
>>
>> Don't tell that to the Canadians.
>
> There was a Canadian at school with me.
>
> We all knew he was Canadian, and we all called him "the Yank".
Aww, you were just yanking his chain.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Mick Gurling
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:46:56 -0400, "Mick Gurling" <mi...@skyweb.net> wrote:
> A bit like wogs in England. They come from south of the Trent if you live
> north of it, and begin at Calais if you live south of it.
>
>
Oriental Gentleman' make what you will of that! <removes tongue from cheek>
BTW also from my South London roots England starts at the south coast and
ends at the Thames. anywhere else is abroad!
--
Mick G (Now in CT-USA)
Bob
In rhyming slang, septic tank.
Bob, Nowra, NSW.
Graeme Wall
"Is Mise Gan Ainm" <nospa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Just to change the subject discussion - when did are all
> citizens of the U.S.A., become 'Yanks' - I thought that
> colloquialism applied only to those from Connecticut?
>
>
Doesn't it apply to anyone born north of the Mason-Dixon line?
Graeme Wall
haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 23:00:39 GMT, "Is Mise Gan Ainm"
> <nospa...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >Just to change the subject discussion - when did are all
> >citizens of the U.S.A., become 'Yanks' - I thought that
> >colloquialism applied only to those from Connecticut?
>
> No, those are Yankees.
>
> Yanks is generic US, and may even include Canadians.
>
>
Don't let a Canadian hear you say that, not if you value your goolies!
Bernie Quigley
very much!!!!!!
We are called CANUCKS!
Bernie the Canuck
Halifax NS Can
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4112d502...@news.saix.net...