Obituary Tag Type

[bienia 0]

I use two tags for obituaries, one for the obituary and a separate one for the text obituary. These are my versions of obit tags based on a number of on-line examples. Here is the Obit tag I'm using:

 

[:CR:][:TAB:]<[D],> [RF:Deceased]'s obituary appeared in the newspaper < [L]> <. It listed [R:Survivors] as surviving the deceased><. The obituary listed [R:Preceded] as preceding [RM:Deceased] in death> <. [M]>

 

I also have an Obit-txt tag that ony has [M] as the sentence structure.

 

The role sentences are:

Deceased: [:CR:][:TAB:]<[D],> [RF:Deceased]'s obituary appeared in the newspaper < [L]> <. It listed [R:Survivors] as surviving [RM:Deceased]> <. The obituary listed [R:Preceded] as preceding [RM:Deceased] in death> <. [M]>

 

Survivors: [RF:Deceased]'s obituary <[D]>< in the newspaper [L]> listed [R:Survivors] as surviving [RM:Deceased].<[M0]>

 

Preceded (male version): [:CR:][:TAB:]While he died before [R:Deceased], his name ([R:Preceded]) was listed in [RF:Deceased]'s obituary <[D]> <[L]>.<[M0]>

 

Preceded (female version): [:CR:][:TAB:]While she died before [R:Deceased], her name ([R:Preceded]) was listed in [RF:Deceased]'s obituary <[D]> <[L]>.<[M0]>

 

Note: I added the CR/TAB to the Preceded to it would be output as a separate paragraph after the body of the narrative for the person.

 

Here is an example of the output.

 

On 20 Feb 1908, Flora's obituary appeared in the newspaper Acton Free Press, Acton, Ontario. It listed her daughter Mrs. (Capt) [Eliza] Curry, her son-in-law, J.A. Tracy and her son, Mr. C. G. Murray as surviving her. The obituary listed her father, Capt. Alex. McNab, her first husband, Richard Tracy Esq., Col. Murray and Miss [Mary Jane] Tracy as preceding her in death. Flora's obituary read:

 

"Flora's onituary read:" is the start of the Obit-txt tag output.

 

Any comments or suggestions for improvement will be appreciated.

Edited August 2, 2007 by bienia

[SarahRose 0]

Teresa has two examples of obituary tags on her website: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancest...ry/TMG/TMG.html

 

Does anyone have another good example of setting up obituary tags?

 

What are the pros and cons of these various methods?

 

SarahRose

[Terry Reigel 0]

I use:

 

[:CR:][:TAB:]The following obituary appeared:[:CR:][LIND:][M][:LIND]

 

The name of the paper goes in the Details Place field.

[GenerationGoneBy 0]

Bill,

That's pretty much how I do mine as well. I like the text in a separate tag because I prefer the footnote to be before the transcription, so I cite the OBIT tag, but not the OBIT-Text Tag.

[Les Wylde 0]

I use a sentence similar to Terry's sentence, except I include a memo in which I put the text of the obituary in italics:

 

An account of the life of [R+:Deceased] appeared <[L]> <[DD]>. <[M1]>

 

The + forces the use of the full name, which I prefer in the obituary sentence.

 

Les Wylde

[SarahRose 0]

I am using 3 tags: Obit-Name; Obituray; and Obit-Img.

 

I use the Obit-Name tag for names as needed. Then I use [:NP:] as the sentence, so two blanks and a period will not print out in the report.

 

The Obit-Img tag will contain the obituary Exhibit.

 

For the Obituary tag itself, I combined several people's ideas [Jack Hokenstrom, Jeanne Allan, Terry Reigel, and the site created by Teresa Elliott], modified them, and came up with:

 

Principal:

 

[:CR:][:TAB:][PFS] obituary was in the <[iTAL:][L2][:ITAL]> newspaper <dated [D]> <, published in [L]>. As listed in the obituary, [PF] was survived by [PP]< husband, [R:shusband]>< wife, [R:swife]><; son, [R:sson]><; sons, [R:ssons]><; daughter, [R:sdaughter]><; daughters, [R:sdaughters]><; aunt, [R:saunt]><; aunts, [R:saunts]><; brothers, [R:sbrothers]> <; brother, [R:sbrother]><; cousin, [R:scousin]><; cousins, [R:scousins]><; grandchild, [R:sgrandchild]><; grandchildren, [R:sgrandchildren]><; grandson, [R:sgrandson]><; grandsons, [R:sgrandsons]><; granddaughter, [R:sgranddaughter]><; granddaughters, [R:sgranddaughters]><; grandfather, [R:sgrandfather]><; grandfathers, [R:sgrandfathers]><; grandmother, [R:sgrandmother]><; grandmothers, [R:sgrandmothers]><; mother, [R:smother]><; father, [R:sfather]><; nephew, [R:snephew]> <; nephews, [R:snephews]><; niece, [R:sniece]> <; nieces, [R:snieces]><; step daughter, [R:sstep daughter]> <; step daughters, [R:sstep daughters]><; step son, [R:sstep son]><; step sons, [R:sstep sons]><; uncle, [R:suncle]><; uncles, [R:uncles]> <; sister, [R:ssister]> <; sisters, [R:ssisters]><; those not specifically identified were [R:survivor]><; [M1]><. The obituary listed [PP]>< husband, [R:phusband]>< wife, [R:pwife]><; son, [R:pson]><; sons, [R:psons]><; daughter, [R:pdaughter]><; daughters, [R:pdaughters]><; aunt, [R:paunt]><; aunts, [R:paunts]><; brothers, [R:pbrothers]> <; brother, [R:pbrother]><; cousin, [R:pcousin]><; cousins, [R:pcousins]><; grandchild, [R:pgrandchild]><; grandchildren, [R:pgrandchildren]><; grandson, [R:pgrandson]><; grandsons, [R:pgrandsons]><; granddaughter, [R:pgranddaughter]><; granddaughters, [R:pgranddaughters]><; grandfather, [R:pgrandfather]><; grandfathers, [R:pgrandfathers]><; grandmother, [R:pgrandmother]><; grandmothers, [R:pgrandmothers]><; mother, [R:pmother]><; father, [R:pfather]><; nephew, [R:pnephew]> <; nephews, [R:pnephews]><; niece, [R:pniece]> <; nieces, [R:pnieces]><; step daughter, [R:pstep daughter]> <; step daughters, [R:pstep daughters]><; step son, [R:pstep son]><; step sons, [R:pstep sons]><; uncle, [R:puncle]><; uncles, [R:puncles]> <; sister, [R:psister]> <; sisters, [R:psisters]><, as preceding [OBJ] in death> <; [M2]>.

 

Examples of some surviving Roles:

 

sWife: (surviving wife)

[:CR:][:TAB:]She was identified as a surviving wife in [P]'s obituary in the <[iTAL:][L2][:ITAL]> newspaper <dated [D]> <, published in [L]>.

 

sSon:

[:CR:][:TAB:]He was identified as a surviving son in [P]'s obituary in the <[iTAL:][L2][:ITAL]> newspaper <dated [D]> <, published in [L]>.

Examples of some predeceased Roles:

 

pGrandson: (predeceased grandson)

[:CR:][:TAB:]He was identified as a predeceased grandson in [P]'s obituary in the <[iTAL:][L2][:ITAL]> newspaper <dated [D]> <, published in [L]>.

 

pSisters:

[:CR:][:TAB:]She was identified as a predeceased sister in [P]'s obituary in the <[iTAL:][L2][:ITAL]> newspaper <dated [D]> <, published in [L]>.

 

Detail field: name of the newspaper should be entered into it.

 

There is one semi-colon (which I do not know how to fix) that prints out for the principal which should not. Other than that, it seems to work OK.

 

SarahRose

[Terry Reigel 0]

Sarah,

 

I don't see where the extra semicolon comes from. Where does it appear? It's not clear to me what goes in the two memo segments, but I see they are introduced with semicolons.

 

But beyond that there are a couple of flaws with this that are common with complex sentences of this type that attempt to collect everyone automatically by the use of roles. Basically they don't work well, in my view. I see three specific issues:

 

1. It fails if there are no survivors. There will always be the phrase "As listed in the obituary, John was survived by his" phrase. In practice this probably isn't serious - if there are no survivors who would publish the obit?

 

2. It fails if there is no one preceding in death. You always get, after the survivors, "The obituary listed his, as preceding him in death." They are in conditionals, but the condition - the presence of the Principal - is always satisfied. I'd think this one may be real, especially in the case of a young person.

 

3. The lists of survivors and "preceded in death's" should have "; and" before the last group for proper grammar. This doesn't do that, and as a practical matter it is very difficult to do with this type of Sentence. That's one of the main reasons such constructions fail to provide good narrative output.

 

Much better, in my view is this sentence for the Principal:

 

[:CR:][:TAB:][PFS] obituary was in the newspaper <.>.

 

Then, construct the desired output in the memo, custom writing it to fit the actual case, written in a way that doesn't sound like it was written by a computer. For example, this might be the memo:

 

As listed in the obituary, he was survived by his wife, [R:swife], his three sons [RF:ssons], a daughter [RF:sdaughter]>, and his younger brother, [R:sbrother]. The obituary listed his son, [R:pson]> and brother, [R:pbrother]> as preceding him in death

 

Finally, it looks to me like there is no provision for mother, father, stepmother(s), stepfather(s), stepson(s), stepdaughter(s), or "good friend" to mention a few I thought of. That's another reason such constructions don't work well, in my view - you can never collect all the possibilities.

[SarahRose 0]

1. It fails if there are no survivors. There will always be the phrase "As listed in the obituary, John was survived by his" phrase. In practice this probably isn't serious - if there are no survivors who would publish the obit?

 

2. It fails if there is no one preceding in death. You always get, after the survivors, "The obituary listed his, as preceding him in death." They are in conditionals, but the condition - the presence of the Principal - is always satisfied. I'd think this one may be real, especially in the case of a young person.

 

Thank you, Terry. Being new, these two problems had not occurred to me. I only have a few obituaries and they are of direct ancestors.

 

3. The lists of survivors and "preceded in death's" should have "; and" before the last group for proper grammar. This doesn't do that, and as a practical matter it is very difficult to do with this type of Sentence. That's one of the main reasons such constructions fail to provide good narrative output.

 

I had observed problem #3. And then there is problem #4:

 

4. A semicolon preceding the list of names when there is no spouse mentioned.

 

Much better, in my view is this sentence for the Principal:

 

[:CR:][:TAB:][PFS] obituary was in the <[iTAL:][L2][:ITAL]> newspaper <dated [D]> <, published in [L]><. [M]>.

 

Then, construct the desired output in the memo, custom writing it to fit the actual case, written in a way that doesn't sound like it was written by a computer. For example, this might be the memo:

 

Guess who is going to go back and change her obituary tags. Fortunately, it looks like the witness tags will be OK.

 

Thanks again,

SarahRose

[Terry Reigel 0]

And then there is problem #4:

 

4. A semicolon preceding the list of names when there is no spouse mentioned.

You mentioned that before, but not the context, and I couldn't see why it was happening. Now that you point out where it occurs, I can see the issue.

 

All of the terms, other than those for the spouses, start with a semicolon. But, if there is no spouse, then the first term that is used applies the semicolon where it is not desired. That's another illustration of how these complicated sentences generally don't work well - it's quite difficult to write a list like this and get it punctuated properly when there are so many possibilites of who will be included and who will not be.

 

No general solution to this one occurs to me other than customizing the sentence locally, but that seems to defeat the whole purpose of trying to get everything to work automatically.

[Ann 0]

Dear Bill or anyone else who can help me

 

I like your obit tag in posting #1 and so have applied this in the Master Tag List. When I preview the sentence in the Tag Entry Box by clicking on the Sentence button all looks well. It reads "On 17 Jan 1958, James' death notice appeared in the newspaper the Daily Times".

 

However if I print an individual narrative I get "he was obituary on 17 Jan 1958 at the Daily Times. OK I know how to fix the "at" prefix, but what I am doing wrong?

 

I have had this happen with other tags I have amended. They also appear correct in the preview box but not in the reports.

 

Thanks

Ann

[Terry Reigel 0]

The problem most likely is that your report is using a different language than the preview. Look which Language is checked on the File > Language menu, than compare that to the Language setting on the General tab of report Options. I think you will find them to be different. Change the report setting to match the Language you are working in.

[Ann 0]

The problem most likely is that your report is using a different language than the preview. Look which Language is checked on the File > Language menu, than compare that to the Language setting on the General tab of report Options. I think you will find them to be different. Change the report setting to match the Language you are working in.

Thank you Terry. Such a simple solution. It certainly seems to have worked in the one I have investigated. Yes I did have English US chosen in one, and English UK in the other. You've done great things for my blood pressure.

 

Ann