Nick, I did not suggest [AE] (or [RE:role]) because of the problem you described where you get a date with unwanted detail (months, days) if both birth and event dates are exact enough to provide those values. For my own sentences, I use [A] and its variants and I don't worry about the cases where the age can't be calculated. I am biased, however: I don't want the sentence to include "at age 55" if it might have been age 54 or 56! Regarding the difference of the [AE] value in TMG and SS, I can only tell you how SS works. Its basic approach is to assume month=1 and day=1 for missing parts of partial dates. Here are some examples. "B=" shows the birth date, "E=" shows the event date. #1: B="1960" E="2000" Years=40 * Both dates assume month=1 and day=1. #2: B="1960" E="01 Jul 2000" Years=40 * "1960" treated as 1/1/1960, so any day in 2000 is 40 years difference. #3: B="01 Jul 1960" E="2000" Years=39 * "2000" treated as 1/1/2000, and any day before July 1 is 39 years. #4: B="01 Jul 1960" E="30 Jun 2000" Years=39 * Same as above, just showing a specific day before July 1. #5: B="01 Jul 1960" E="01 Jul 2000" Years=40 * Flips over to 40 on the matching month, day and subsequent #6: B="01 Jul 1960" E="02 Jul 2000" Years=40 * Same as above. Again, I don't know how TMG does it. Perhaps TMG is only considering the years of the two dates when one of the dates has a year only. If that is so, I won't be changing SS to match it. John