I guess I am getting to old for this new thinking. I have always been told that when a person leaves the womb that they either live or die. If they live they are Born. If I don't know when someone was born I would normally say I don't know, but in doing Genealogy it is nice to be able to know the about birth date when someone was born. " abt 1827" If I am looking for say George Smart and you have 10 George Smart's in your data bases you can at least get in the ball park with the right George, if you find out when he was born without looking at all 10 George's. All the genealogy programs I have worked with use "abt" "bef" "aft". I personally don't use to many "bef" and "aft" on birth and death dates as they can get you in trouble when doing a PROBLEM REPORT. Death. That is going to happen to all of us and none of us know when. It can be from 1 day old to 112 years old. Maybe some even a little older. If you don't have anything in the death and a person is 125 then they must be dead. When did they die?? Why do you have to Assume "And thank you Alfred for the definition of Assume" that the person died? What you are saying by using a "bef" date for a death date is that the person could have died right after birth up until the before date you have entered. My suggestion is leave it blank or use an about date. If someone tells you Harry died about 1956 enter "abt 1956" but if they tell you he died before 1956 and you put "bef 1956" When before 1956 in 1946, 1936, 1926 1916?????. OK, Thats my two cents worth. Bob Rose I use an "Assumed" note. If a person was born in 1860, I enter a death date of "bef. 1960" then put the word "Assumed" in the note. When making a book, I do a search (you have to be editing with word processing software) for Assumed and make it read "It is assumed he died before 1960." This makes it clear that no date of death is known but the person would be in excess of 100 years old if deceased. This prevents the person from being shown as Living in a report. I do the same with marriage dates for a couple with children if I know the birth year of at least one child. It can also be done with birth dates, but that's a little more perilous since assuming a child was born AFTER the parents' marriage is frought with speculation. As is the fact that the couple was married at all! The word "Assumed" in the note helps a great deal. Hmmmm. I wonder if "Assumed" could be used as a source as well, causing it to show up as a footnote? Sounds like something I'll fiddle with. Loretta Iroquois County ILGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~iliroquo/ Ford County ILGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilford/ Iroquois County Genealogical Society http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilicgs/ My Families http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~loretta/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Winfrey" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 10:12 AM Subject: [FO] Living vs Dead > If no dates are known for birth and death, and the life took place 200 years > ago, does FO know the person is dead? Is there a flag for Living/Dead? > > Jim > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > FAMILY ORIGINS - Ordering, UPDATES, books, FAQ, FREE DEMO, Newsletter, etc. http://formalsoft.com For the 8.03 and 9.02 PATCHES and what they fix, go to: http://formalsoft.com/files.htm > >

The reason for entering SOMETHING as a death fact for a person who would be in excess of 100 years old if living is so that when making Web pages or some other format in which you do not want living people's statistics to show, the program will identify the person as dead. If the person is not identified as dead to the program, the program will treat that person as living and not generate their birth or marriage dates, even if you have those and want them displayed. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]om> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 11:55 AM Subject: [FO] (FO) Living Vs Dead > I guess I am getting to old for this new thinking. I have always been told > that when a person leaves the womb that they either live or die. If they > live they are Born. If I don't know when someone was born I would normally > say I don't know, but in doing Genealogy it is nice to be able to know the > about birth date when someone was born. " abt 1827" If I am looking for say > George Smart and you have 10 George Smart's in your data bases you can at > least get in the ball park with the right George, if you find out when he was > born without looking at all 10 George's. All the genealogy programs I have > worked with use "abt" "bef" "aft". I personally don't use to many "bef" > and "aft" on birth and death dates as they can get you in trouble when doing > a PROBLEM REPORT. > Death. That is going to happen to all of us and none of us know when. It > can be from 1 day old to 112 years old. Maybe some even a little older. If > you don't have anything in the death and a person is 125 then they must be > dead. When did they die?? Why do you have to Assume "And thank you Alfred > for the definition of Assume" that the person died? What you are saying > by using a "bef" date for a death date is that the person could have died > right after birth up until the before date you have entered. My suggestion > is leave it blank or use an about date. If someone tells you Harry died about > 1956 enter "abt 1956" but if they tell you he died before 1956 and you put > "bef 1956" When before 1956 in 1946, 1936, 1926 1916?????. > > OK, Thats my two cents worth. > > Bob Rose > > > > I use an "Assumed" note. If a person was born in 1860, I enter a death date > of "bef. 1960" then put the word "Assumed" in the note. When making a book, > I do a search (you have to be editing with word processing software) for > Assumed and make it read "It is assumed he died before 1960." This makes it > clear that no date of death is known but the person would be in excess of > 100 years old if deceased. This prevents the person from being shown as > Living in a report. > > I do the same with marriage dates for a couple with children if I know the > birth year of at least one child. It can also be done with birth dates, but > that's a little more perilous since assuming a child was born AFTER the > parents' marriage is frought with speculation. As is the fact that the > couple was married at all! The word "Assumed" in the note helps a great > deal. > > Hmmmm. I wonder if "Assumed" could be used as a source as well, causing it > to show up as a footnote? Sounds like something I'll fiddle with. > Loretta > > Iroquois County ILGenWeb Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~iliroquo/ > Ford County ILGenWeb Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilford/ > Iroquois County Genealogical Society > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilicgs/ > My Families > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~loretta/ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Winfrey" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 10:12 AM > Subject: [FO] Living vs Dead > > > > If no dates are known for birth and death, and the life took place 200 > years > > ago, does FO know the person is dead? Is there a flag for Living/Dead? > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > > FAMILY ORIGINS - Ordering, UPDATES, books, FAQ, FREE DEMO, Newsletter, > etc. http://formalsoft.com For the 8.03 and 9.02 PATCHES and what they fix, > go to: http://formalsoft.com/files.htm > > > > > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > The Genealogical Companion http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2399/tgc.htm > Browsable Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/family-origins-users/ > >

I use the "bef" death dates frequently in my database but they are almost all from relatives listed in obituaries as having predeceased the subject of the obit. Then I list them as having died before the publication date of the obit. I think this useful for me to know and records their being mentioned in a printed source. Dan [email protected] wrote: > > Death. That is going to happen to all of us and none of us know when. It > can be from 1 day old to 112 years old. Maybe some even a little older. If > you don't have anything in the death and a person is 125 then they must be > dead. When did they die?? Why do you have to Assume "And thank you Alfred > for the definition of Assume" that the person died? What you are saying > by using a "bef" date for a death date is that the person could have died > right after birth up until the before date you have entered. My suggestion > is leave it blank or use an about date. If someone tells you Harry died about > 1956 enter "abt 1956" but if they tell you he died before 1956 and you put > "bef 1956" When before 1956 in 1946, 1936, 1926 1916?????. > > OK, Thats my two cents worth. > > Bob Rose

I might as well add my penny's worth. Most people graduate from high school about 18 years after they are born, in this case an estimated about seems logical: if he was born 1927, "He graduated from the local high school about 1945" works for me. In an obituary: "Herbert died July 10, 1900. He is survived by his Sister Harriet and was preceded in death by his brother, Harry." If that is all we know, it seems logical to me to enter Harriet's death date as after July 10, 1900 and Harry's death date as before July 10, 1900. If I know where someone was buried, but I don't know the burial date I think it would work to add 2 or 3 days to the death date and say about. Here, just saying after the date of death, doesn't seem to narrow the time down enough, although it is accurate, I HOPE! This is probably another place where we are going to have to ask ourselves; "What is the definition of 'IS'?" Alfred D. Eller http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adelr/ ========================== ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 11:55 AM Subject: [FO] (FO) Living Vs Dead ==== SNIP ==== > My suggestion > is leave it blank or use an about date. If someone tells you Harry died about > 1956 enter "abt 1956" but if they tell you he died before 1956 and you put > "bef 1956" When before 1956 in 1946, 1936, 1926 1916?????. > > OK, Thats my two cents worth. > > Bob Rose > >