I use a combination of two of these suggestions. I use: [[Jones, John B.,
wife of]][--?--] as the surname. This way, it at least sorts alphabetically
by spouse's last name in my index, and the only part displayed in reports
for the surname is the [--?--]. I think this display format is consistent
with what Slawson suggests in her book.
Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, Georgia, USA
www.roots2buds.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "John B. Lisle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Three questions.
Colleen,
I do not think that putting a surname in brackets is a goof idea for
unknown surnames. If you put a surname in the brackets it might be
mistaken by someone as "Maybe it's Smith (or whatever name you have...)".
The code that I adopted a number of years ago and many others seem to be
using now (based on numbers found in the WorldConnect database... ) is
[--?--]. No one would ever confuse that for a surname and it would stand
out well as a piece of data to be acquired. And as I said in an earlier
message, it sorts at the beginning of your name list.
But is it not great that you can use anything you want...
john.
At 12:43 AM 4/24/2006, Dove wrote:
I had been using Unknown for unknown surnames. I just didn't know
what else to do. I am thinking of changing my unknowns to the surname
in brackets; but actually, I am not sure that helps me much since I am
doing a one name study. LOL But, since I am also doing the
ancestors of those in the one name study, it might help for those
oddball (not the one name study name) names to help differentiate
them. By jove, I think I will change to the brackets! Thanks!
Infant deaths I record as Baby Surname with the label of male or
female checked if known.
AS to birth dates or death dates. I like to assume dates.
So, if I have no death date---I figure 100 years after whatever I have
as a birth date , & show it as "Bef year source : Assume died
before 100 years old.
If I have a marriage record with no age and no birth dates....I assume
they were at least 14 to get married and calculate 14 years before the
marriage date and show it as " born Bef year source: Assume at
least 14 at time of marriage" . So this is generally the latest the
girl could have been born.
If I find a marriage record for a child and have gotten the parents
names from that record (which doesn't have their birth dates). I will
assume the mother was at least between the ages of 14 and 50 when she
gave birth. So, if the mariage took place in 1850 and I am assuming
the bride was at least 14--that would mean the bride was born "bef
1836". So, if the daughter was born bef 1836 and the mother also had
to be at least 14 when she gave birth and 50 to still be giving
birth--the mother's date would read born "btwn 1786 - 1822 source:
assumed mother was between 14 and 50 when she gave birth to first
child Sarah." The dates might end up a couple of years off
(rarely) and I at least have some type of dates to work with as
opposed to blank dates that could be in the 1600's, 1700's, 1800's
etc. I find this helps me tremendously especially with my study
(Some names were popular and I have a plethora of Pierres and
Benjamins etc , all with the same last name).
That's all probably as confusing as mud and I apologize for that. It
makes sense to me and works well for me. :)
Colleen
Enter the drawing for a FREE Legacy Cruise to Alaska or a FREE research trip to
Salt Lake's Family History Library. Open to users of Legacy 6 Deluxe. Enter
online at http://legacyfamilytree.com/FreeTrip.asp
Legacy User Group guidelines can be found at:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/
For online technical support, please visit
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
