<<snipped>> Unmarried is clear in the definition of the child being born to unmarked parents. As accurate ad the GED definition, the term Adultery in society and in most families that i know is a perjorative term. <<snipped>> There are two issues here. Firstly, without a note describing what was going on, we are losing information. While the parents are not married to each other, one of them _was_ married. While this will be visible in FH _if_ you look hard enough, if you were to pull off a report for the child, there will be no mention of the other spouse of the married parent and so no indication of the circumstances of the child's birth. Surely, if we are to respect the child's history, we need to record this and a note seems to be the only safe way of guaranteeing that the information appears with the child's report. Secondly, we have the contention that the word "Adultery" is, of itself, pejorative. I contend that, in the absence of any non-pejorative term of _identical_ meaning, it is possible to write a note in a neutral-point-of-view (what we want) while still using that word. Those who will morally condemn, will do so no matter what word or phrase we use. Further, for long periods of time, the term "unmarried" in relation to parents, would have been almost as pejorative as "adulterous", so if we reject one, it is illogical to accept the other. Adrian B

Thank you Adrian, I was certainly not imposing a judgemental suggestion, merely that by noting the relationship was adulterous showed that one of them was married at the time, otherwise the relationship would have merely been unmarried with no notes Regards Shelagh -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 15 December 2013 15:26 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Adultery <<snipped>> I think using the term adultery is making judgements rather than documenting the relationship. I do not think our role is to make value judgements <<snipped>> It is certainly not our job to impose our own moral judgments on other circumstances in other times. However, the word "adultery" has a perfectly clear definition - "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another who is not his or her spouse" (quoting the first part of the first OED definition). Just recording the relationship as "unmarried" is not sufficient, as that could cover the case where both parties are unmarried. Certainly, some people associate a value judgement with the word. But in the absence of an equivalent word _without_ that value judgment, I shall have to carry on using the word. Adrian B ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> I think using the term adultery is making judgements rather than documenting the relationship. I do not think our role is to make value judgements <<snipped>> It is certainly not our job to impose our own moral judgments on other circumstances in other times. However, the word "adultery" has a perfectly clear definition - "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another who is not his or her spouse" (quoting the first part of the first OED definition). Just recording the relationship as "unmarried" is not sufficient, as that could cover the case where both parties are unmarried. Certainly, some people associate a value judgement with the word. But in the absence of an equivalent word _without_ that value judgment, I shall have to carry on using the word. Adrian B

I would also put a note in the section by the unmarried couple (or "never married" ) to say that the relationship was adulterous. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 15 December 2013 11:09 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Adultery I would: - create a Family between the unmarried woman and the sister's husband. - In the "Status" field of the Family record, mark the relationship as 'Unmarried Couple'. On diagrams, the relationship will appear by default as two dotted lines. - Record the child as the offspring of that relationship. - Annotate the Family with a Local Note if you want to include more information. If you want that note information to be private on reports etc, enclose it in double square braces [[....]] John --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Unmarried is clear in the definition of the child being born to unmarked parents. As accurate ad the GED definition, the term Adultery in society and in most families that i know is a perjorative term. Albert Sent from my iPhone On Dec 15, 2013, at 11:24 AM, "Greenbee" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Adrian, I was certainly not imposing a judgemental suggestion, > merely that by noting the relationship was adulterous showed that one of > them was married at the time, otherwise the relationship would have merely > been unmarried with no notes > > Regards > > Shelagh > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian > Bruce > Sent: 15 December 2013 15:26 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FHU] Adultery > > <<snipped>> > I think using the term adultery is making judgements rather than documenting > the relationship. I do not think our role is to make value judgements > <<snipped>> > > It is certainly not our job to impose our own moral judgments on other > circumstances in other times. > > However, the word "adultery" has a perfectly clear definition - "Voluntary > sexual intercourse between a married person and another who is not his or > her spouse" (quoting the first part of the first OED definition). Just > recording the relationship as "unmarried" is not sufficient, as that could > cover the case where both parties are unmarried. > > Certainly, some people associate a value judgement with the word. But in the > absence of an equivalent word _without_ that value judgment, I shall have to > carry on using the word. > > Adrian B > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You can complete most of John's suggestion in the unmarried sister's Property Box. Click the blue "Add Spouse/Partner" link and "Link Existing Record" to add her sister's husband. In the "Status" box that appears on that Spouse tab, select "Unmarried Couple" from dropdown list. Click the blue "Add Child" link and add the child of the liaison. Open her sister's husband's Property Box to see his two "Spouses". Add Notes wherever you think appropriate. Regards, Mike Tate

I would: - create a Family between the unmarried woman and the sister's husband. - In the "Status" field of the Family record, mark the relationship as 'Unmarried Couple'. On diagrams, the relationship will appear by default as two dotted lines. - Record the child as the offspring of that relationship. - Annotate the Family with a Local Note if you want to include more information. If you want that note information to be private on reports etc, enclose it in double square braces [[....]] John --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

unlucky ________________________________ From: JayFollett <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 15 December 2013, 10:52 Subject: [FHU] Adultery Tricky one. How do you record a child born as a result of a liaison between an unmarried woman and her sister's husband Jackie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Tricky one. How do you record a child born as a result of a liaison between an unmarried woman and her sister's husband Jackie

I think using the term adultery is making judgements rather than documenting the relationship. I do not think our role is to make value judgements Albert Sent from my iPhone On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:55 AM, "Greenbee" <[email protected]> wrote: > I would also put a note in the section by the unmarried couple (or "never > married" ) to say that the relationship was adulterous. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: 15 December 2013 11:09 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FHU] Adultery > > > I would: > > - create a Family between the unmarried woman and the sister's husband. > - In the "Status" field of the Family record, mark the relationship as > 'Unmarried Couple'. On diagrams, the relationship will appear by default as > two dotted lines. > - Record the child as the offspring of that relationship. > - Annotate the Family with a Local Note if you want to include more > information. > If you want that note information to be private on reports etc, enclose > it in double square braces [[....]] > > John > > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 14 December 2013 12:47, JayFollett <[email protected]> wrote: > How can I change this please Have you looked at http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:changing_relations The video shows you how to move children around. -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

I have put 3 children with the correct father but wrong mother as thought he had been married twice. I have deleted the wrong spouse but still have the children shown under "no spouse". How can I change this please Jackie Follett

Whilst there seems, from Simon and Jane's responses, to be no way, as yet, of having a Polish (or any other non-English) language version, it IS possible to set up your keyboard to produce non-English letters, as a switchable alternative to the standard UK/ US keyboard. For Polish, take a look at (for example): http://www.polishnewsseattle.org/info/PolskieLitery.htm Other sites, Microsoft included (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/bb964651.aspx), show which keys relate to what character in the alternative language. Whilst this approach isn't, perhaps, ideal, it may be of use for those with non-English alphabet requirements as regards personal or place names, etc., although it is clearly of no use to anyone who is unable to use the software in their own (non-English) language. A similar approach would, almost certainly, apply to any non-English alphabet. Regards, Graham On 12/12/2013 10:22, Rod Moulding wrote: > John - > > This is a continuing sore point for those of us with interests in Poland, > and other countries whose languages require diacritical marks, additional > letters, etc. Sporadic posts demonstrate interest but not (I regret) in > vast numbers. I wonder whether Calico Pie have properly taken into account > the substantial population of persons in the UK and elsewhere (even more so > in the USA) with Polish ancestry, not to mention the fact that much of the > Ashkenazi Jewish community has Polish roots. There's untapped market > potential there. To be fair, the problem affects the representation of > place names somewhat more than that of personal names, but authenticity is > important. At present it's rather like having to enter English place names > without being able to use certain letters. > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Larysz > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 7:49 PM > To: Family Historian User Group > Subject: [FHU] Polish version > > Is there a Polish edition of Family Historian? > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Simon - Thank you for this rapid, constructive and reassuring response. Rod

Rod > I wonder whether Calico Pie have properly taken into account > the substantial population of persons in the UK and elsewhere (even more > so > in the USA) with Polish ancestry, not to mention the fact that much of the > Ashkenazi Jewish community has Polish roots. I can assure you that we are very aware of the importance of this issue (which as you say, affects many countries, not just Poland) and we are actively looking at ways of providing better support for non-English alphabets and accents etc. Simon Orde List Administrator & Family Historian designer

As someone with some Polish roots, I sympathise with people requesting the handling of additional alphabets for place names. Since Poland has had, over the centuries, rather short periods of independence, does authenticity require the rendering of names in one of the Cyrillic alphabets or in the (fairly modern) half-romanized alphabet of modern Poland (ISO-8859-2)? Were the places to be recorded in Poland at the time of the event being recorded? This is a real issue for the northern regions of what is now Poland. Places like Filipow, where some of my ancestors come from, has been in Russia, Lithuania and Poland (and almost always disputed territory until after WW2). Should we record in the alphabet of the time of the event or of modern Poland? Is either more authentic than using a modern transliteration into ASCII or ISO-8859-1? For people with Ashkenazi ancestors, authenticity is a fluid concept. Names have often been through several transliterations. Many Polish Jewish names will have been "Cyrillicised" from the original Hebrew. In my case, it was Margolis (Hebrew/Greek)->Margolinsky (Polish)->Margolis (English). There is the additional complication that during the various influxes into the UK (and USA) immigration officers often misheard/couldn't cope with the names given and assigned their own versions! Our family view is that we record whatever the person was known by in the country where they resided. A further complication is the deep distrust for authorities shared by many immigrants (not just Jewish ones) given their bad experiences in the country they've just left. Anything source that required an immigrant to fill in an official form (especially BMD registrations and census documents) has to be regarded with some caution. One of my great-grandfathers was variously Moshe Cherakoff (approximately Polish), Charles Maurice and Maurice Morris! He also didn't register any of his daughters' births. Authenticity is an elusive concept. Bob

I think my relatives want the program translated (menus, help, and so on) as much as character set handling. One (not a big market!) would buy it, but he can't drive an English-language product. There might be others in my family, but I've found only one with a real interest in documenting our genealogy. It's a tough call. Supporting multiple languages is very expensive for developers - if the market doesn't pay for it the product turns into a social service rather than a business. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rod Moulding Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Polish version John - This is a continuing sore point for those of us with interests in Poland, and other countries whose languages require diacritical marks, additional letters, etc. Sporadic posts demonstrate interest but not (I regret) in vast numbers. I wonder whether Calico Pie have properly taken into account the substantial population of persons in the UK and elsewhere (even more so in the USA) with Polish ancestry, not to mention the fact that much of the Ashkenazi Jewish community has Polish roots. There's untapped market potential there. To be fair, the problem affects the representation of place names somewhat more than that of personal names, but authenticity is important. At present it's rather like having to enter English place names without being able to use certain letters. Rod -----Original Message----- From: John Larysz Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 7:49 PM To: Family Historian User Group Subject: [FHU] Polish version Is there a Polish edition of Family Historian? ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

John - This is a continuing sore point for those of us with interests in Poland, and other countries whose languages require diacritical marks, additional letters, etc. Sporadic posts demonstrate interest but not (I regret) in vast numbers. I wonder whether Calico Pie have properly taken into account the substantial population of persons in the UK and elsewhere (even more so in the USA) with Polish ancestry, not to mention the fact that much of the Ashkenazi Jewish community has Polish roots. There's untapped market potential there. To be fair, the problem affects the representation of place names somewhat more than that of personal names, but authenticity is important. At present it's rather like having to enter English place names without being able to use certain letters. Rod -----Original Message----- From: John Larysz Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 7:49 PM To: Family Historian User Group Subject: [FHU] Polish version Is there a Polish edition of Family Historian? ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 11 December 2013 19:49, John Larysz <[email protected]>wrote: > Is there a Polish edition of Family Historian? No, but you can do a certain amount of customisation of Facts sets etc to produce output which is mostly in a language of your choice, it's not currently possible to change the program interface. -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

Is there a Polish edition of Family Historian?