TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2010-12 > 1292808685


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Always specific names for specific events? Bad idea.
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:31:28 -0600
References: <20101219115520.088611@Terry>
In-Reply-To: <20101219115520.088611@Terry>


On 12/19/2010 10:55 AM, Terry Reigel wrote:
> Darrell A. Martin wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many people would enter the name for "Beth" in the
>> following common example Dutton, John HOH Jane Wife Adam
>> Son Beth Dau Charlie Son as Given=Beth Surname=[blank]
>
> Darrell,
>
> I can't understand why anyone would if the objective is to enter the
> name as found in the record. According to the instructions given to
> enumerators, and followed with very rare exceptions in my experience,
> the record states that her name was Beth Dutton. Whether that was
> correct is, of course, another matter.
>
> Terry Reigel

Terry:

If the objective is to "enter the name as found in the record" then the
rhetorical question is: how *is* the name found in the record?

Practically, I can't see why anyone would enter a blank surname either.
However, in my own data it doesn't matter. I never create a Name-xyz Tag
in order to conform to a Source record, unless I have concluded from the
evidence that the person in question actually *used* that form of the
name. A summary of the entire household is entered in the Source
Definition, Supplemental Tab. The contents of the Supplemental Tab are
output in the Bibliography Format. Here is an actual example:

----------
Annotation:
Dutton, Perrin S. 66 Head
" Sybil D. 33 Wife
" Herbert W. 18 Son
Pollard, John H. 25 Boarder;
Entry ID:
page 6B dwelling 130 family 134
----------

As you can see, I actually preserve the ditto mark (or blank when that
is what is in the record), allowing the reader to at least consider
other possible conclusions than mine. But I put all that in the Source
record where, in my opinion, it belongs; not in structured fields in a
Name-xyz Tag.

I'm going to have to revisit this Source, by the way. I think the
"Annotation:" part is unwanted, or better yet should be changed to
"Summary:". It comes from earlier software, either UFT or even before
that (a CP/M program running on a 360KB floppy). It is Source Record #75
in TMG, and I am a splitter.... I smell a cleanup project.

Darrell


This thread: