Jump to content


Photo

Immigration sentences for children


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 DeAnna Burghart

DeAnna Burghart
  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 29 July 2007 - 10:05 PM

It never seemed quite right to me to state that a child immigrated on a given date unless they traveled alone. Presumably, it's not as though a six-year-old had much say in the matter. I do have one 14-year-old independent immigrant (apprenticed to an armsmaker in the New World after his parents' death) but for the rest, I settled on this:

WithParents: [W] immigrated to [L6] with his parents in [Y]<. [WM]><[M0]>

WithParents-Date: [W] arrived in <[L4]><[L5]> with his parents <[D]><. [WM]><[M0]>

There are similar variations for WithMother, WithFather, WithFamily, etc.

#2 Heintz57Kids

Heintz57Kids
  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bremerton, Washington

Posted 30 July 2007 - 09:19 AM

I agree, and (perhaps) went one step further. I have folks immigrating and emigrating all over the place. One family of siblings moved, bit-by-bit, to Australia. They stayed for a time (some more, some less) then a few moved to Canada, and a few moved back to England. One of those who moved "home" to England eventually joined his siblings in Canada. So here's what I've done:

First, I set up a custom place style, called "Migration," where [L1] = Destination City, [L2] = Destination State/County, [L3] = Destination Country, [L4] = Ship's Name, [L5] = Departure City, [L6] = Departure State/County, [L7] = Departure Country, [L8] = Port City, [L9] = Port State/County, and [L10] = Port Country.

Then, I customized the Immigration Tag sentence to read as follows:

Principle (male sentence example):
[:CR:][:CR:][PF] arrived in <[L8],>< [L9],>< [L10]> <[D]><, aboard the "[L4]">, having departed from <[L5],>< [L6],>< [L7]>. <His intended destination was [L1]><, [L2]><, [L3]> <Also included on the passenger list was [R:Family Member].> <[M]>

The only custom role I have is "Family Member" which reads (male sentence, again):
[:CR:][:CR:][RF:Family Member] arrived in <[L8],>< [L9],>< [L10]> <[D]><, aboard the "[L4]"> with [P]<, [WM]>, having departed from <[L5],>< [L6],>< [L7]>. <His intended destination was [L1]><, [L2]><, [L3].> <[M0]>

I know that the principle sentence is not grammatically correct when multiple family members are listed, but I suppose you could call this a "work in progress." :P

Here's how it comes out:

For Emma (Abbott) Rounsefell, I add the following to the Location: L1=Bathurst, L2=New South Wales, L3= -, L4=S.S. Oruba, L5=Plymouth, L6= -, L7=England, L8=Sydney, L9=New South Wales, L10= Australia. If I also have the date they left port, I could add it in the memo field.

Her son, William Reginald James Rounsefell accompanied her. He has the "Family Member" Role in the Witness section.

The sentences then read:

Emma arrived in in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia in May 1894, aboard the "S.S. Oruba", having departed from Plymouth, England. Her intended destination was Bathurst, New South Wales. Also included on the passenger list was William Reginald James Rounsefell.

For the son, I put "his mother" in the witness memo to get:

William arrived in in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia in May 1894, aboard the "S.S. Oruba" with Emma Rounsefell, his mother, having departed from in Plymouth, England. His intended destination was Bathurst, New South Wales.

Katrina

Edited by Heintz57Kids, 30 July 2007 - 09:24 AM.



#3 bienia

bienia
  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Location:Hillsburgh, Ontario, Canada

Posted 02 August 2007 - 12:47 PM

Principle (male sentence example):
[:CR:][:CR:][PF] arrived in <[L8],>< [L9],>< [L10]> <[D]><, aboard the "[L4]">, having departed from <[L5],>< [L6],>< [L7]>. <His intended destination was [L1]><, [L2]><, [L3]> <Also included on the passenger list was [R:Family Member].> <[M]>


Katrina,
You could create a second "pseudo plural" (Terry Reigel's term) role for multiple family members called [R:Family Members], with the same sentence structure as [R:Family Member], and then change the last part of the principle sentence to:

... <Also included on the passenger list was [R:Family Member].> <Also included on the passenger list were [R:Family Members].> <[M]>

By doing this, if you have one other family member, you would use the [R:Family Member] role, for two or more, use the [R:Family Members] role for each family member. Either way the resulting sentence reads correctly.

Edited by bienia, 02 August 2007 - 12:48 PM.

Bill Bienia

#4 Heintz57Kids

Heintz57Kids
  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bremerton, Washington

Posted 02 August 2007 - 08:59 PM

You're right, Bill. I should have known that. I've used Terry's census roles, and the one follows from the other, doesn't it?

Thanks



#5 Michael Hannah

Michael Hannah
  • Moderators
  • 2,733 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Ranchos, New Mexico, USA
  • Interests:Genealogy, Computers

Posted 03 August 2007 - 10:58 AM

I use both of the two standard tags, but have customized both to deal with possible children or any others that came as a group. I also changed the sentences of the standard Immigratn tag to make the Date and the arrival Location non-optional for the immigration so if you don't include it you get the “unknown” phrases. I use the Principal role “Head” for P1, and do not use P2, and the Witness role “immigree” for all others immigrating with the “Head” as a group.
[P]<, listed as [M1],> immigrated to [L] [D]< from [M2]>< along with [R:immigree]>.< [M3]>
The split tag memo [M1] optionally provides the name of the Head as listed in the immigration documentation in case it is different than any Name-Var defined for this person, [M2] optionally specifies the claimed departure location, and [M3] has optional comments. My sentence for the Witness role “immigree” is:
[W]<, listed as [WM1],>< as a [WM2]> led by [P1] immigrated to [L] [D]< from [M2]>.< [WM3]>
The split Witness memo [WM1] optionally provides the listed name of this immigree, [WM2] the listed relationship to the Head (e.g. “son”), and [WM3] has optional comments. The listed departure location from the main split memo [M2] is included in the immigree sentence if it has been entered. If you create ship “pseudo” people in your dataset, you could also add the ship as a witness with custom role of “ship” and an appropriate sentence. I changed the sentences of the standard tag Emigration in a similar manner to require the Date and the Location from which the emigration is taking place, with equivalent “emigrated from”sentences and the Witness role “emigree”,

Hope this gives you ideas.
Michael
See my book on how I customize TMG My Way.
My website.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users