> > <snip> > > > > Bob- > > > > It may seem HARMLESS until you are confronted with thousands of > > Newbie (and some not so Newbie) genealogists searching for years in > > vain for the LNU ancestors. I even had one gal tell me she never > > realized she had Mandarin Chinese ancestors until she found FNU LNU > > and figured it was a Chinese ancestor. For about a year (until the > > board was eventually put out of its misery) I adminned the LNU > > message board at RootsWeb and dutifully wrote to all the posters > > letting them know they were probably searching in vain for their > > wild LNUs. > > > > Joan <JYoung6180@aol.com> > > Believe me, I do understand that human stupidity has no limits - I > learned the hard way while doing tech support at IBM in the early > '90s, I won't regale you with my favorite stories, however; suffice > to say they amply illustrate the point. > > But the present case seems to me to be somewhat otherwise, given the > lack of consensus on the right and proper way, however you wish to > define right and proper, to indicate unknown name elements. In many > ways, it seems to be a High Church/Low Church or big-endian/ > little-endian argument with no hope of resolution. The lack of > consensus is clearly illustrated by the article you originally > cited, with no one method clearly favored. > > What do _I_ use? I leave the unknown portion of the name blank. > Why? Because I don't like any of the other alternatives, including > FNU. That said, methinks the right answer to the OP is "whatever > works for you, but be ready to explain yourself". > > Swell Ol' Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net> I thought it was Sweet Ol' Bob, nevertheless... I recognize the use of "Unknown" so all of them wind up in the "U" section of an alpha listing BUT in your personal opinion why would you not use ? or ??? for unknown? I deplore filling the blanks with "good intentions". Don't hold back - I'm used to comments from Sweet Ol' Bobs! 8-) Hugh Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> Because Mary --?-- (Jones) is ambiguous to a newbie. A newbie > probably won't notice the difference between ( [ and { either. My > personal genie program has a suffix field; I use it for things like > DD MD DDS and the like, but I know people who put married names in > there...and I think it's ambiguous. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> How 'bout CDR? On second thought forget it - I'm not in your data base! Hugh

> The lack of consensus is clearly illustrated by the article you > originally cited, with no one method clearly favored. > > What do _I_ use? I leave the unknown portion of the name blank. > Why? Because I don't like any of the other alternatives, including > FNU. That said, methinks the right answer to the OP is "whatever > works for you, but be ready to explain yourself". > > Swell Ol' Bob <amia9018@mypacks.net> Bob- The article DOES explain what is preferred while acknowledging that many people do not use it or know of it. I'd accept your "whatever works for you" advice provided you are not preparing your file for anyone other than YOU to use or view. If others are to use it or even SEE it -- they are not going to come to you necessarily for an explanation of your display methods...they are going to draw their own, probably incorrect conclusions and base their file upon their misconceptions. Joan JYoung6180@aol.com

> > I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law > > is living with her son. > > i.e. > > Jim Jones B 1803; > > Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law. > > > > Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you > > enter as the name of her husband? > > > > Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> > > First in your example is it not a mother living with her son-in-law, > and shouldn't her surname be different than Jim's? If the surnames > are the same then more likely she's Jim's step-mother, rather than > mother-in-law, unless at that time the two terms were > interchangeable. > > Gerry ISTR that there was some discussion about this in relation to brother-in-law in s.g.britain some time ago and it appeared that in fact --in-law in the past could be the same as step- in current usage. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>

[ For some bizarre reason, RootsWeb's spam filter keeps discarding kdberr1@aol.com's post. I'm sending this through under my address to see if I can get the post past the filters. - Mod ] HI: I have been sort of following this discussion and decided to write a response when I read this contribution. Not all women had maiden names. My ancestors were free African Americans (who had surnames) and others were slaves. I am getting to the point where I will be discovering slave ancestors who had no (recorded) surname. I have read that many slaves did choose surnames but hid them from the slave owner. Over the years of my research I have discovered that it's especially difficult to trace female slave ancestors, much less find their surnames. Fortunately I've been able to find the most elusive surname for my 2nd great grandmother, because she died in 1923 (born in the 1830s in NC) in a state where there was a death certificate issued (OH). Two more comments: I use "unknown" as in "unknown Jones father" or "unknown Smith husband" in my Family Tree Maker software. Just easier that way, and I think abbreviations would be confusing. Second: I don't know of any genealogy software that accommodates slave ancestry. I've had to improvise to record slave owners and slaves using Excel or the notes part of Family Tree Maker. Kberry kdberr1@aol.com

>>>Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question in >>>the since there is no standard answer. >>> >>>As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys >>>in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I >>>identify Mary as Mary Unknown. >>> >>>I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the >>>example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary >>>JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family >>>specifically Jim. >>> >>>I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last >>>name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting. >>> >>>Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> >> >> Keith, if you can stand one more response, several years ago I >> adopted a method suggested by another user of my genealogy program >> to indicate women with an unknown maiden name. >> >> For her surname, I would put ______ (Jones) [I always use 6 >> underlines to keep it consistent.] The person suggesting it said >> that, when she took her data to a family reunion or mailed it to >> someone, they could see immediately that the person's maiden name >> was missing and often filled it in. This has worked very well for >> me until I found the woman's surname. >> >> Laurie Nelson > > Oh, Lord, PLEASE don't use (parens) on anything but the maiden name! > > The (parens) for maiden name was the standard or norm or preferred > practice back in the 1950s (well before I started my genealogy), and > far's I know still is. Using it for anything else is guaranteed to > confuse someone somewhere down the line. And future generations > seem to be easy enough to confuse even when we go out of our way to > KISS it for them! > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Cheryl, I have a Readme in my genealogy program (RootsMagic) that lists all the conventions I use, including the one for an unknown maiden name. If people who use my data don't like my conventions, they can change them. It's taken me several years to decide on the conventions I use, and they work for me. Sorry if I don't care whether they work for someone else. I don't like the conventions others use either; if I copy their data until I can research and verify it, I change it to my liking. Laurie Nelson P.S. The way I have a Readme is to create an individual named "#READ ME" in the Surname field and "Important Information in Note - " in the Given Name(s) field. My conventions are listed in the note for the "person." "Laurie Nelson" <lanenelson1@msn.com>

D. Stussy wrote (after all the other posts ... ) >>>>>>I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law >>>>>>is living with her son. >>>>>>i.e. >>>>>>Jim Jones B 1803; >>>>>>Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law. >>>>>> >>>>>>Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you >>>>>>enter as the name of her husband? >>>>>> >>>>>>Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> >>>>> >>>>>We've had this discussion may times - >>>>>what name to use for someone whose >>>>>last name is unknown. >>>>> >>>>>I use Unknown. >>>>> >>>>>We are told that the accepted practice for a person with no last >>>>>name is to enter it as [--?--] or something similar. Apparently, >>>>>some genealogy programs will do this automatically when a last name >>>>>is missing. >>>>> >>>>>People do all kinds of things to identify the person >>>>>as being part of Jim Jones' family like >>>>>Mary [Motherinlaw of Jim Jones] >>>>> >>>>>If you only have one Jim Jones, this might work for >>>>>you, but I have not found that to be much of an improvement, >>>>>since I have many people of the same name in my tree, so >>>>>it doesn't help me much. >>>>> >>>>>The simplest way is to give her the last name of unknown. >>>>>That way, you know you have to find her name, and you >>>>>also know that you didn't omit her name by accident when >>>>>you were entering your data. >>>>> >>>>>Lisa <llepore@comcast.net> >>>> >>>>Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question in >>>>the since there is no standard answer. >>>> >>>>As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys >>>>in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I >>>>identify Mary as Mary Unknown. >>>> >>>>I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the >>>>example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary >>>>JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family >>>>specifically Jim. >>>> >>>>I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last >>>>name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting. >>>> >>>>Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> >>> >>>Keith, if you can stand one more response, several years ago I >>>adopted a method suggested by another user of my genealogy program >>>to indicate women with an unknown maiden name. >>> >>>For her surname, I would put ______ (Jones) [I always use 6 >>>underlines to keep it consistent.] The person suggesting it said >>>that, when she took her data to a family reunion or mailed it to >>>someone, they could see immediately that the person's maiden name >>>was missing and often filled it in. This has worked very well for >>>me until I found the woman's surname. >>> >>>Laurie Nelson >> >>Oh, Lord, PLEASE don't use (parens) on anything but the maiden name! >> >>The (parens) for maiden name was the standard or norm or preferred >>practice back in the 1950s (well before I started my genealogy), and >>far's I know still is. Using it for anything else is guaranteed to >>confuse someone somewhere down the line. And future generations >>seem to be easy enough to confuse even when we go out of our way to >>KISS it for them! >> >>"Cheryl Singhals" <singhals@erols.com> > > Since all women are supposed be listed by maiden name* in any given > database, why would this yield a problem? Because Mary --?-- (Jones) is ambiguous to a newbie. A newbie probably won't notice the difference between ( [ and { either. My personal genie program has a suffix field; I use it for things like DD MD DDS and the like, but I know people who put married names in there...and I think it's ambiguous. Let's say that Mary --?-- married (1) Jim Johnstone and had issue, (2) Sam Smith, and had issue, and (3) Bob Jones, no issue. And the print-out says she's Mary (Jones). Sam and Jim and their descendants are out in the cold gloom of night and well out of sight of any searchers. > I am quite aware that genealogy books will print maiden names in > parentheses to separate and distinguish them from married names, but > that's not quite the same thing as they LACKED the database format > that is used today. But, lacking an electronic database format doesn't mean they lacked filing systems and databases of a sort. > * - Actually, all people should be listed under their birth name as > their main entry. All other names are merely alternates (or > footnotes). A smidge ethnocentric, isn't it? AmerInds apparently changed their name rather frequently as they went through life. No point in showing that Gurgling Brave died at the age of 103, when he was known as Silver Wolf at the time of his death. Then, wandering back to European traditions, the birth name of an adopted child might not be known since she used her adoptive name all her life. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

D. Stussy wrote: > * - Actually, all people should be listed under their birth name as > their main entry. All other names are merely alternates (or > footnotes). And what would you do if you don't, as in the OP's case, know their birth name? Ignore the individuals? You can only list the evidence you've got. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>

> <snip> > > Bob- > > It may seem HARMLESS until you are confronted with thousands of > Newbie (and some not so Newbie) genealogists searching for years in > vain for the LNU ancestors. I even had one gal tell me she never > realized she had Mandarin Chinese ancestors until she found FNU LNU > and figured it was a Chinese ancestor. For about a year (until the > board was eventually put out of its misery) I adminned the LNU > message board at RootsWeb and dutifully wrote to all the posters > letting them know they were probably searching in vain for their > wild LNUs. > > Joan <JYoung6180@aol.com> Joan, Believe me, I do understand that human stupidity has no limits - I learned the hard way while doing tech support at IBM in the early '90s, I won't regale you with my favorite stories, however; suffice to say they amply illustrate the point. But the present case seems to me to be somewhat otherwise, given the lack of consensus on the right and proper way, however you wish to define right and proper, to indicate unknown name elements. In many ways, it seems to be a High Church/Low Church or big-endian/ little-endian argument with no hope of resolution. The lack of consensus is clearly illustrated by the article you originally cited, with no one method clearly favored. What do _I_ use? I leave the unknown portion of the name blank. Why? Because I don't like any of the other alternatives, including FNU. That said, methinks the right answer to the OP is "whatever works for you, but be ready to explain yourself". Swell Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net>

> > I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law > > is living with her son. > > i.e. > > Jim Jones B 1803; > > Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law. > > > > Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you > > enter as the name of her husband? > > > > Keith Nuttle > > Whatever name he has when (if!) you find him. Until then don't even > list a husband for her. As things stand you have no evidence that > she even had one. > > Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> > Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard > at nildram co uk Jones with a notation?

Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > [...] > I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the > example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary > JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family > specifically Jim. [...] Likewise, I find that indicating, for those for whom I know no dates, in either the name suffix or the birth location, remarks such as "child born 1825", "mother born 1767", "grandson born 1852" can help give me a feel of when the person lived as I potter through a tree. "Misusing" fields in this way may not be to everyone's taste, of course. myths@ic24.net (cecilia)

> I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law > is living with her son. > i.e. > Jim Jones B 1803; > Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law. > > Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you > enter as the name of her husband? > > Keith Nuttle Whatever name he has when (if!) you find him. Until then don't even list a husband for her. As things stand you have no evidence that she even had one. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>

> >>>>I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law > >>>>is living with her son. > >>>>i.e. > >>>>Jim Jones B 1803; > >>>>Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law. > >>>> > >>>>Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you > >>>>enter as the name of her husband? > >>>> > >>>>Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> > >>> > >>>We've had this discussion may times - > >>>what name to use for someone whose > >>>last name is unknown. > >>> > >>>I use Unknown. > >>> > >>>We are told that the accepted practice for a person with no last > >>>name is to enter it as [--?--] or something similar. Apparently, > >>>some genealogy programs will do this automatically when a last name > >>>is missing. > >>> > >>>People do all kinds of things to identify the person > >>>as being part of Jim Jones' family like > >>>Mary [Motherinlaw of Jim Jones] > >>> > >>>If you only have one Jim Jones, this might work for > >>>you, but I have not found that to be much of an improvement, > >>>since I have many people of the same name in my tree, so > >>>it doesn't help me much. > >>> > >>>The simplest way is to give her the last name of unknown. > >>>That way, you know you have to find her name, and you > >>>also know that you didn't omit her name by accident when > >>>you were entering your data. > >>> > >>>Lisa <llepore@comcast.net> > >> > >>Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question in > >>the since there is no standard answer. > >> > >>As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys > >>in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I > >>identify Mary as Mary Unknown. > >> > >>I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the > >>example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary > >>JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family > >>specifically Jim. > >> > >>I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last > >>name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting. > >> > >>Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> > > > > Keith, if you can stand one more response, several years ago I > > adopted a method suggested by another user of my genealogy program > > to indicate women with an unknown maiden name. > > > > For her surname, I would put ______ (Jones) [I always use 6 > > underlines to keep it consistent.] The person suggesting it said > > that, when she took her data to a family reunion or mailed it to > > someone, they could see immediately that the person's maiden name > > was missing and often filled it in. This has worked very well for > > me until I found the woman's surname. > > > > Laurie Nelson > > Oh, Lord, PLEASE don't use (parens) on anything but the maiden name! > > The (parens) for maiden name was the standard or norm or preferred > practice back in the 1950s (well before I started my genealogy), and > far's I know still is. Using it for anything else is guaranteed to > confuse someone somewhere down the line. And future generations > seem to be easy enough to confuse even when we go out of our way to > KISS it for them! > > "Cheryl Singhals" <singhals@erols.com> Since all women are supposed be listed by maiden name* in any given database, why would this yield a problem? I am quite aware that genealogy books will print maiden names in parentheses to separate and distinguish them from married names, but that's not quite the same thing as they LACKED the database format that is used today. * - Actually, all people should be listed under their birth name as their main entry. All other names are merely alternates (or footnotes). "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org>

"Keith Nuttle" <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law > > > is living with her son. > > > i.e. > > > Jim Jones B 1803; > > > Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law. > > > > > > Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you > > > enter as the name of her husband? > > > > > > Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> > > > > We've had this discussion may times - > > what name to use for someone whose > > last name is unknown. > > > > I use Unknown. Very BAD. I have seen others who do that then pass on their data to other researchers. The other researchers, not speaking the same language, think it's a real surname. I have seen this happen for "unbekannt", German for unknown. This is no different than using the acronym "LNU". > > We are told that the accepted practice for a person with no last > > name is to enter it as [--?--] or something similar. Apparently, > > some genealogy programs will do this automatically when a last name > > is missing. I use a single question mark, separated by spaces on either side, to indicate this. A question mark adjacent to a name without a space expresses uncertainty about that name. A question mark adjacent to a parenthetical grouping of multi-word names expresses doubt about the entire entry enclosed. I use a single dash as a placeholder for a given name when no name was ever assigned. Don't use "unnamed" for the same reason as above. > > People do all kinds of things to identify the person > > as being part of Jim Jones' family like > > Mary [Motherinlaw of Jim Jones] > > > > If you only have one Jim Jones, this might work for > > you, but I have not found that to be much of an improvement, > > since I have many people of the same name in my tree, so > > it doesn't help me much. > > > > The simplest way is to give her the last name of unknown. > > That way, you know you have to find her name, and you > > also know that you didn't omit her name by accident when > > you were entering your data. > > > > Lisa <llepore@comcast.net> > > Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question in > the since there is no standard answer. > > As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys > in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I > identify Mary as Mary Unknown. > > I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the > example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary > JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family > specifically Jim. > > I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last > name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting. > > Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> The usage of any TEXT (i.e. alphabetics) as a placeholder for an unknown value is dangerous. Much (if not all) software treats text as a real entry. You don't want such entries to be returned in queries such as "give me all surnames that have a U in them". A non-alphabetic placeholder is the only valid solution to avoid such problems.

> > > I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law > > > is living with her son. > > > i.e. > > > Jim Jones B 1803; > > > Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law. > > > > > > Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you > > > enter as the name of her husband? > > > > > > Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> > > We've had this discussion may times - > > what name to use for someone whose > > last name is unknown. > > > > I use Unknown. > > > > We are told that the accepted practice for a person with no last > > name is to enter it as [--?--] or something similar. Apparently, > > some genealogy programs will do this automatically when a last name > > is missing. > > > > People do all kinds of things to identify the person > > as being part of Jim Jones' family like > > Mary [Motherinlaw of Jim Jones] > > > > If you only have one Jim Jones, this might work for > > you, but I have not found that to be much of an improvement, > > since I have many people of the same name in my tree, so > > it doesn't help me much. > > > > The simplest way is to give her the last name of unknown. > > That way, you know you have to find her name, and you > > also know that you didn't omit her name by accident when > > you were entering your data. > > > > Lisa > > llepore@comcast.net > > Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question in > the since there is no standard answer. > > As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys > in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I > identify Mary as Mary Unknown. > > I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the > example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary > JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family > specifically Jim. > > I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last > name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting. > > Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> My 2c worth. I use Legacy to record my information. In Legacy the use of [[ ]] around an entry marks it as private, meaning that you can see it all the time but it doesn't print or export to web pages. I use it to indicate who the "Mary" unknown is married to eg; Mary [[JONES]]. Legacy allows you to easily see which jones and it lowers the incidence of identical unknowns. It works well for me and I don't have non-standard formats exporting for people to "snipe" at. -- Gene Y. n2kvs Researching Young, Zies, Harer & Cox with Legacy Family Tree http://h1.ripway.com/egptech/ "Gene Y." <n2kvs@cfl.rr.com>

> Well, I don't know. Given the seeming ubiquity of LNU for an > unknown last name, the suggestion seem relatively harmless. > Given, too, the lack of consensus on the "proper" way to indicate > that unknown last name, I have to say this comment strikes me as > pettifoggery. > > Sun-tanned Ol' Bob Bob- It may seem HARMLESS until you are confronted with thousands of Newbie (and some not so Newbie) genealogists searching for years in vain for the LNU ancestors. I even had one gal tell me she never realized she had Mandarin Chinese ancestors until she found FNU LNU and figured it was a Chinese ancestor. For about a year (until the board was eventually put out of its misery) I adminned the LNU message board at RootsWeb and dutifully wrote to all the posters letting them know they were probably searching in vain for their wild LNUs. Joan JYoung6180@aol.com

>>>>I have several situations where a person listed as a mother in law >>>>is living with her son. >>>>i.e. >>>>Jim Jones B 1803; >>>>Mary Jones B:1780 mother-in-law. >>>> >>>>Since her maiden name probably is not Jones, What name do you >>>>enter as the name of her husband? >>>> >>>>Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> >>> >>>We've had this discussion may times - >>>what name to use for someone whose >>>last name is unknown. >>> >>>I use Unknown. >>> >>>We are told that the accepted practice for a person with no last >>>name is to enter it as [--?--] or something similar. Apparently, >>>some genealogy programs will do this automatically when a last name >>>is missing. >>> >>>People do all kinds of things to identify the person >>>as being part of Jim Jones' family like >>>Mary [Motherinlaw of Jim Jones] >>> >>>If you only have one Jim Jones, this might work for >>>you, but I have not found that to be much of an improvement, >>>since I have many people of the same name in my tree, so >>>it doesn't help me much. >>> >>>The simplest way is to give her the last name of unknown. >>>That way, you know you have to find her name, and you >>>also know that you didn't omit her name by accident when >>>you were entering your data. >>> >>>Lisa <llepore@comcast.net> >> >>Thank you for the responses to my question. This answers my question in >>the since there is no standard answer. >> >>As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys >>in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I >>identify Mary as Mary Unknown. >> >>I like the idea of tying in the family to the unknown an as in the >>example above of Mary motherofJimjones. Maybe I will try Mary >>JonemotherofJim, as that would tie Mary to the Jones family >>specifically Jim. >> >>I have found incidences where two unrelated people with the same last >>name have married. It keeps genealogy interesting. >> >>Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> > > Keith, if you can stand one more response, several years ago I > adopted a method suggested by another user of my genealogy program > to indicate women with an unknown maiden name. > > For her surname, I would put ______ (Jones) [I always use 6 > underlines to keep it consistent.] The person suggesting it said > that, when she took her data to a family reunion or mailed it to > someone, they could see immediately that the person's maiden name > was missing and often filled it in. This has worked very well for > me until I found the woman's surname. > > Laurie Nelson Oh, Lord, PLEASE don't use (parens) on anything but the maiden name! The (parens) for maiden name was the standard or norm or preferred practice back in the 1950s (well before I started my genealogy), and far's I know still is. Using it for anything else is guaranteed to confuse someone somewhere down the line. And future generations seem to be easy enough to confuse even when we go out of our way to KISS it for them! Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

The plural form is MOTHERS IN LAW. halltall@aol.com

> Bob Melson wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > In lieu of wp functionality, may I suggest you look at gdbi and how > > it makes use of the lifelines reports/report language? If you > > decide to adopt/adapt those/that, you have "instant" wp-like > > functionality and allow your users the ability to create > > customi{s,z}ed outputs. > > Pray tell, what is gbdi? > > bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net> Formally, gdbi stands for Gedcom DataBase Interface. gdbi is a program, written in java, which provides a Brothers Keeper-like interface to, among others, phpGedView. For more details, see: http://gdbi.sourceforge.net/ And remember, google is your friend! Smilin' Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net>

> > What's the wife's/daughter's maiden name? Absent that knowledge, > > how 'bout "LNU" or a blank? > > > > Shameless Ol' Bob <amia9018@mypacks.net> > > Anyone considering using some symbols or acronym for an unknown > surname, should first read the following article in the RootsWeb > Review archives entitle In Search of the Wild LNUs: > > http://ftp.rootsweb.ancestry.com/pub/review/20030827.txt > > Joan <JYoung6180@aol.com> Well, I don't know. Given the seeming ubiquity of LNU for an unknown last name, the suggestion seem relatively harmless. Given, too, the lack of consensus on the "proper" way to indicate that unknown last name, I have to say this comment strikes me as pettifoggery. Sun-tanned Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net>