TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-06 > 1150258989


From: "DeAnna Burghart" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Unnamed child
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:23:09 -0700
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAALWFRs1YvmdCsrz+6CF/ha3CgAAAEAAAAJ6HL7H7KmdLv4xFaSA1gpUBAAAAAA==@sbcglobal.net>


>>If you want to follow the National Genealogical Society standards you
would
use:

[-?-]

In place of both an unknown given and / or surname.<<

True, Kevin, but there's a difference between unknown, which the above
designates, and unnamed, which was what Bob was describing.

I have to agree with what others have hinted; I can't believe a child would
go for a month without a name -- surely his parents called him *something*
in that time. So while his name was not *recorded*, I would tend to presume
he was named, and is therefore unknown, making the -?- designation correct.
But if you want to go by what the record said and assume he was truly
unnamed, I personally use Baby Boy and Baby Girl -- that's usually what's on
the birth and death certificates, so it's good enough for me. If the name
exists but is simply unknown, I leave it blank so TMG can generate the
filler above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DeAnna Burghart
TMG Shortcuts, Variables and Report Cheat Sheets (Word and PDF)
http://members.cox.net/danieleb765/genealogy/

This thread: