21 replies to this topic

[Jane Neuman]

Hello all!

My birth sentence is boring, but ... I'm also a little lazy. I don't want to go back to all my birth events and add witnesses, memos, etc.

With that said, I can jazz things up by just changing my standard sentence in my birth tag.

I was thinking of ...

Frank was the fourth child born to Charles Cornwell (age 40) and Lovina Thayer (age 27) on [D] [L].

I have two questions about this approach:

i) Is there a way to get TMG to count the prior children or would I have to enter it in a memo somewhere?

ii) Can anyone explain the Age variables that can be used in sentences? I have experimented with it some, but have trouble achieving my desired results. From reading the help file, it must have to do with how the dates are entered. It has trouble calculating when there are abt or circa dates. Is there a simple rule of thumb? I know there are different age variables that calculate differently.


Finally, does anyone else have a favorite birth sentence that might put some pep in that first sentence of the narrative? If I find something that really rocks, I might be persuaded to do the extra work of adding roles and memos!

Regards,

Jane

[Michael Hannah]

My birth sentence is boring, but ... I'm also a little lazy. I don't want to go back to all my birth events and add witnesses, memos, etc.
With that said, I can jazz things up by just changing my standard sentence in my birth tag. ...

Hi Jane,

Well, yes you could just change the sentence, but that would still make all the sentences the same (and still boring ). However, if you are willing to go back and add memos to those births that you want a little bit different, then adding a memo to your standard birth sentence would be valuable.

i) Is there a way to get TMG to count the prior children or would I have to enter it in a memo somewhere?

I don't know of a variable to count prior children. I think the only way would be to have it in the memo.

ii) Can anyone explain the Age variables that can be used in sentences? ... Is there a simple rule of thumb?

Whether TMG can calculate an age is dependent upon what is entered as the date (not sort date) in both the primary tag in the Birth group and the tag with the age variable in the sentence. The [A] variable produces output in years only when both the primary tag in the Birth group and the tag that contains the [A] variable contain the full (day, month, year) dates, and the age is over one year. It returns no value when the age can not be precisely calculated (e.g. incomplete dates that have only the year). If the [A] is bound by conditional brackets “<[A]>” then the sentence variable is ignored for incomplete dates or an age less than one year and no age is output. An unconditional use of the variable will return “at an unknown age” for incomplete dates. The [AE] variable will produce an exact age (years, months, and days) if both dates are complete. It will still produce output even if only approximate dates are known, but it will be only years. The TMG documentation calls [AE] an exact age variable, I choose to call it an exact or estimated age variable.

Finally, does anyone else have a favorite birth sentence that might put some pep in that first sentence of the narrative? If I find something that really rocks, I might be persuaded to do the extra work of adding roles and memos!

I don't think this will qualify as "really rocks" but you might consider:

CODE

[P] was born <[M1]><[D]><[L]>.<[M2]>

The split memo allows a lot of different report output with this same standard sentence, and since both parts are conditional you can use either or both parts for variety. For example the [M1] part could be "as the fourth child and second son" to provide the count of prior children you wanted, or maybe describe the birth with "after 12 hours of painful labor" or whatever would read well at this point in the sentence. The [M2] part is designed to be a complete additional sentence, perhaps "He was welcomed as the first son, finally providing an heir to the title and lands." Also note that sentence variables can be entered inside the memo, so you don't have to predefine them in this standard sentence. For example, [M1] could be as simple as "[PAR]", or you could add a Witness and have [M1] be as complicated as "with the aid of the 73 year old local midwife [W], the 300th child she delivered, the third child of [FATH] (age 40) and [MOTH] (age 27)"

Hope this gives you ideas.

[GenerationGoneBy]

Mine is pretty plain vanilla too. But you can spice it up by what you put in the memo. Saying John was born 07 Dec 1941 is pretty boring. Saying John was born 07 Dec 1941. His mother heard of the attack on the Naval Base, Pearl Harbor, where both his father and uncle were stationed and went into premature labor. John was born 5 weeks early, weighing 7 lbs, 14 oz. His uncle was killed in the attack, but his father wasn't hurt.


Or you could tell it like my dad did. James was born on 21 Jun 1936. It was a dark and snowy day, the day James was born. His mother had already walked up hill both ways, barefoot, to milk the cows. Because the family had no bucket, she had to carry the milk in her hands, so she had to make many trips and that was probably what sent her into labor...

I might point out that my dad was born on the first day of summer and the family lived in down town, so there was no cow, but dad told it his way and we kids were enthralled.

[Jane Neuman]

Thanks Teresa and Michael,

I kind of forgot about the conditional memo option. I can leave my sentences alone for those 4th cousins I have hanging around out there, but jazz up the more thoroughly researched ones using the memo.

Also, thanks for explaining the age variable. So ... it would be best not to use a circa date in the primary birth tag, I guess?

Michael ... you rock!

[Michael Hannah]

Also, thanks for explaining the age variable. So ... it would be best not to use a circa date in the primary birth tag, I guess?

Depending upon what age variable you intend to use in other sentences, then yes, that might be an issue. Remember [AE] will still get you years.

As an added issue with the sentence you were hoping to construct, there do exist sentence variables to compute age for a unique witness with a specific role (i.e. [RA:role] or [RE:role]) but using the parent variables (which some people have mistakenly considered to be roles) of MOTH as [RA:MOTH] will not work since this is is a variable not a role. So if you want the parents' ages in the birth sentence you either need to directly enter them as text like I did in my example or link both of the parents as witnesses with specific custom roles to the birth tag as I believe Teresa does. The added advantage of entering the parents as witnesses in the child's birth tag is that the witness sentence can generate text about the child's birth in the parents' narrative which some people find useful. Something to think about as you customize your standard Birth tag.

Michael ... you rock!

Aw... Gosh... Thanks. Glad I could help. And glad John caught my error, once again reminding me that I am human and very fallible.

Edited by Michael Hannah, 28 November 2008 - 10:22 AM.

[John Cardinal]

... but using the "built-in" role of MOTH as [RA:MOTH] did not seem to work

MOTH is not a built-in role. MOTH (and FATH, PAR, etc.) are variables. Roles only apply to principals or witnesses, i.e., people who are explicitly attached to an event.

[Michael Hannah]

MOTH is not a built-in role. MOTH (and FATH, PAR, etc.) are variables.

Absolutely correct, John, and I should not have used that incorrect term in my reply. I have corrected my posting to make that clear to anyone else viewing this topic.

[Michael Hannah]

Michael:
You have given so many excellent tips and helps on this forum. Do you have your data on a web site where we can view them in practice? It is so much easier to adjust our own "stuff" when we have actual examples of these ideas in practice.

Thank you.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your kind words. Glad you feel I have been of help sometiimes. No, I do not have a web site. I only recently retired and have not had the time to devote to genealogy as I would like. However, I have been collecting notes to myself over the years I have been a user of TMG and often look to these for my tips. As a computer professional I have found it vital to document for myself "my way" of customizing any software such as TMG. It helps me be consistent in my data entry and aids in later searches. Further, if I spend some time figuring out how I want to do something in TMG recording that thinking in these notes saves me from having to go through that thought process all over again. At my age I have enough trouble remembering things that I need to make as many notes as I can.

I urge everyone who customizes TMG "their way" to make some kind of record of their reasoning. A couple of years from now when the same questions come up again you will thank yourself. The new "reminders" feature can be a great help in that.

I have thought of collecting my notes into a book or web page, but they would take quite a bit of work first. And as I am still doing some consulting I don't have as much time as I thought I would in retirement. Of course, I really would rather spend more time on my own ancestral research.

Again, thanks for your thoughts,

[Vince41]

Hello all!

My birth sentence is boring, but ...
[SNIP]

I've built a birth sentence that uses the role MD. Create the role in the birth tag. Enter the name of the doctor into the list of names. Add thhe doctor to the witness list as MD.

Enter time of birth as [M1] and birth certificate number as [M2].

The sentence becomes:

[P]<, [PAR],> was born <[D]> <[L]>. <[PF] was delivered by [R:MD]>< at [M1]>. <[PFs] birth certificate number is [M2]>.


[P] is the child's name,
[PF] is the child's first name
[PFS] is the child's first name possessive
[D] and [L] you know
[R:MD] is the role of the delivring doctor
[M1} is the time of birth (witch I think should be a varialbe)
[M2] is the birth certificate number.
[PAR] gives you son/daughter of dad and mom with maiden name

you don't need to make a male and female sentence since [PAR] creates the sentence as daughter or son depending on the gender of the child.

Hope this helps

[Terry Reigel]

Test this without the MD entered. I think you find it doesn't work because you have two cases in which there are two variables with a single set of conditional brackets. Since the Principal is always present, I believe that the conditionals will always be satisfied, and you will get two instances of "unknown" in the output.

[Vince41]

Test this without the MD entered. I think you find it doesn't work because you have two cases in which there are two variables with a single set of conditional brackets. Since the Principal is always present, I believe that the conditionals will always be satisfied, and you will get two instances of "unknown" in the output.

Terry

You're right. Move <at [M1]> to before <[D]>. That works.

Vince

[Terry Reigel]

Vince,

I don't understand. You had:

[P]<, [PAR],> was born <[D]> <[L]>. <[PF] was delivered by [R:MD]>< at [M1]>. <[PFs] birth certificate number is [M2]>.

And I think you are now saying to use:

[P]<, [PAR],> was born < at [M1]> <[D]> <[L]>. <[PF] was delivered by [R:MD]>. <[PFs] birth certificate number is [M2]>.

But that doesn't solve these two issues:

<[PF] was delivered by [R:MD]>
<[PFs] birth certificate number is [M2]>

In both cases you have two variables in a single set of conditionals - that's supposed to be a no-no.

Have you tested this with the MD role un-assigned and the M2 segment empty? I think that will cause a problem.

[John Cardinal]

Terry et al,

The following terms are OK if you want the whole phrase to be ignored if either variable is empty. That looks like the intent to me.

<[PF] was delivered by [R:MD]>
<[PFs] birth certificate number is [M2]>

In practice, only [R:MD] and [M2] can be empty, so the net effect is to omit the "delivered by" fragment if there is no doctor and omit the "birth certificate" fragment if there is no M2.

I am not sure if the rules for handling multiple variables in a conditional term are documented, but I am pretty sure that TMG handles it and I am positive that Second Site does.

The "<, [PAR],>" construct may not work as expected. By itself, "<[PAR]>" creates ", son of father and mother,", i.e., it already adds a leading and trailing comma. I don't know about TMG, but in SS, specifying your own commas will get you two in each place.

[Vince41]

Vince,

I don't understand. You had:

[P]<, [PAR],> was born <[D]> <[L]>. <[PF] was delivered by [R:MD]>< at [M1]>. <[PFs] birth certificate number is [M2]>.

And I think you are now saying to use:

[P]<, [PAR],> was born < at [M1]> <[D]> <[L]>. <[PF] was delivered by [R:MD]>. <[PFs] birth certificate number is [M2]>.

But that doesn't solve these two issues:

<[PF] was delivered by [R:MD]>
<[PFs] birth certificate number is [M2]>

In both cases you have two variables in a single set of conditionals - that's supposed to be a no-no.

Have you tested this with the MD role un-assigned and the M2 segment empty? I think that will cause a problem.

Terry,

I did test it. It works. When you pointed out the error in the first sentence, I went back and broke the sentence down and noticed that if the doctor was missing, the time of birth still printed creating a grammatical error. I moved the time variable ,[M1]>, to before the date and the sentence works with single or multiple variables missing.

I've set up several tags with multiple conditional variables. They all seem to work. I've created one for both Birth and Baptism. They both work perfectly.

Birth:

[P]<, [PAR],>was born< at [M1]> <[D]> <[L]>. <The attending physician was [R:MD]>. <[PFS] birth certificate number is [M2]>.

Below is a copy of the output of the above sentence.

Individual Narrative of Grant Thompson Jr (1)

Grant THOMPSON Jr (1),, son of Grant Paul THOMPSON (2) and Amy PARSON (3), was born at 1:23 am on 5 Jun 2007 at United Hospital, Port Chester, Westchester, NY, USA. The attending physician was Dr Gene PENOCK (4). Grant's (1) birth certificate number is 12345.

Printed on: 8 Jan 2009
Prepared by:
Grant Thompson

[John Cardinal]

Grant THOMPSON Jr (1),, son of Grant Paul THOMPSON (2) and Amy PARSON (3), was born ...

Note the double commas. Change "<, [PAR],>" to "<[PAR]>" and you'll get one comma.

Grant THOMPSON Jr (1), son of Grant Paul THOMPSON (2) and Amy PARSON (3), was born ...

[Terry Reigel]

Thanks, John, for clearifying the rules when there are two variables in the conditionals. I was under the impression that it printed if either was present. But it seems to be that it's omitted if either is absent, which is what's needed here.

And thanks to Vince for demonstrating that.

Terry

[Vince41]

Grant THOMPSON Jr (1),, son of Grant Paul THOMPSON (2) and Amy PARSON (3), was born ...

Note the double commas. Change "<, [PAR],>" to "<[PAR]>" and you'll get one comma.

Grant THOMPSON Jr (1), son of Grant Paul THOMPSON (2) and Amy PARSON (3), was born ...

Thanks, I fixed the error.

Vince

[Vince41]

Thanks, John, for clearifying the rules when there are two variables in the conditionals. I was under the impression that it printed if either was present. But it seems to be that it's omitted if either is absent, which is what's needed here.

And thanks to Vince for demonstrating that.

Terry

I have a problem with witnasses. This is the sentence:

[:CR:][:CR:][:TAB:][PF] was baptized <by [R:Pate]> <[D]> <[L]>. <[PF] was sponsored by [R:Sponsor1]>.< and [R:Sponsor2].> <The event was witnessed by [WO]>


[WO] is defines as other witnesses. I took that to mean anyone not playing a role. When the witness list prints in the report, all witnesses including role players are included in the list. How can I exclude the role players from the list since, as role players, they are assumed to be witnessess. Listing them wtice is redundent.

Thanks

Vince

[Terry Reigel]

Yes, [WO] refers to all "other witnesses" without regard for the role they are assigned.

If the people you want to list are assigned the default role of "Witness" then use the role variable [R:Witness] to list them.