On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:30:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Rev. Charles [Smith Jones] M. D. > >, i. e. you put the surname/family name in []. I think this ceased to >work under BK6, though. > >I can't at the moment remember how it either used to or does now deal >with prefixes and suffixes that aren't part of the name (I think it >recognises some common suffices like "M. D.", but I don't remember there >being any universal way to denote them though. I guess you can get round >it by using alternate names (and selecting "never print" if >appropriate), but it'd be nice if there was a way - perhaps (), [], and >{} could be used when entering (and the option of having the prefix and >suffix - and surname [or forenames] for that matter! - appearing in >selectable colours). > >Sorry, John, another few for the wishlist ... (-: There are rules about Prefix and Suffix. If I will go for any name "new additional facilities" it would be two different Items FIRST: Many person are born and bapt/chr with first and many second name before familyname as Otto Julian Chris Steed. This is the correct entering of name in order according to the Churchbook. But the person use Chris Steed. In this situation I would wish to have the nameused in bold for book reports (here Chris Steed) SECOND: Many names for our old relatives was writen in many ways and for the modern historyy those names are often mad "normalized" and it would be great if that was an "item" among the Alternative names and that we also could print this in Book reports eiter by itselves or additional to other name. -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

In message <908j9756s98v7vpfbvmfbt2vum4a1otpcs@4ax.com>, Otto Jørgensen <otjoerge@online.no> writes: [] >>Sorry, John, another few for the wishlist ... (-: > >There are rules about Prefix and Suffix. > >If I will go for any name "new additional facilities" it would be two >different Items > >FIRST: >Many person are born and bapt/chr with first and many second name >before familyname as > Otto Julian Chris Steed. >This is the correct entering of name in order according to the >Churchbook. >But the person use Chris Steed. In this situation I would wish to have >the nameused in bold for book reports (here Chris Steed) If I understand you correctly, you mean the case where someone is given lots of forenames, and doesn't always use the first one: I would agree it would be useful to have the one s/he prefers to use, highlightable. > >SECOND: >Many names for our old relatives was writen in many ways and for the >modern historyy those names are often mad "normalized" and it would be >great if that was an "item" among the Alternative names and that we >also could print this in Book reports eiter by itselves or additional >to other name. I would like not to have to enter the surname for an alternative name unless it is different, i. e. have BK assume same if only one given (e. g. "John Frost, also known as Jack" - the "Frost" is a given). I've occasionally wondered why John designed BK with just one box for name, rather than one for forename(s) and one for surname(s) [and, thinking about it, ones for prefixes like Dr. and suffixes like honours, qualifications, and callsigns]. Perhaps this would get round all of the things I have raised, though your suggestion of it being possible to indicate which is the preferred forename would still need some indication - maybe the [], thus: forenames: Otto Julian [Chris] surname: Steed (with the [] being omitted if the person used the first one anyway). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf For people who like peace and quiet: a phoneless cord.