TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-02 > 1107313311


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] ins, ats and ons
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:01:51 +0000
References: <20050201202551.68552.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com><!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAaklsBZ+7zhG8IACqAFw2TMKAAAAQAAAAs+ehB4qvpE6P6orijB3/SAEAAAAA@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAaklsBZ+7zhG8IACqAFw2TMKAAAAQAAAAs+ehB4qvpE6P6orijB3/SAEAAAAA@sbcglobal.net>


At 01:36 AM 2/2/2005, Kevin Sholder wrote:
>Kathy / Larry,
>
>Yes, just the "glimmer" of hope is enough to let me wait a while longer. It
>obviously hasn't been a big issue for me yet, but I've been mulling this
>over a while now.
>
>Thank you for your time,
>Kevin L. Sholder

Hi, Kevin:

The "preposition problem" has been around "forever". It has been a very big issue for me, and I have made suggestions about it from time to time. I probably have invested over a hundred hours in creating and testing the two preposition systems that I have used, and in data cleanup and modification related to them.

Currently, I use a place style and a single-excluded code in the Temple (L10) field to handle prepositions. My system avoids the danger of modifying every occurrence of a place just because I changed the preposition in one Tag. It works well in both TMG reports and Second Site output as far as I can tell.

It would be a very pleasant surprise indeed if it became possible to specify the preposition at the Tag level. I am not holding my breath. Further, I am not sure now that the effort to switch and clean up yet again would be worth it. Something would have to be broken for me to change, since my second, current, system was created just late last year.

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Illinois
http://www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy/


This thread: