Jump to content

elricks

Members
  • Content count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Age at marriage

    More info - some of my birth dates are just the year. Your sentence skips the age if any date is NOT a full date - and I can see that this is 'as intended' by Bob. This is more than OK. I will set up a marriage version 2 tag with [P] married [PO] <[PARO]> <[DD]> <[L]><, The groom was [A1E] and the bride [A2E]><. The ceremony was witnessed by [WO]><. [M]>). This produces the following when the groom has only his YOB recorded. Robert Fields married Anna Abbs, daughter of Plane Abbs and Frances Everett, on Fri. 24 Dec 1847 in All Saints' Church, Sheringham, Norfolk, England, The groom was 23 years and the bride 21 years, 8 months and 25 days. Anna Abbs married Robert Fields, son of William Fields, on Fri. 24 Dec 1847 in All Saints' Church, Sheringham, Norfolk, England, The groom was 23 years and the bride 21 years, 8 months and 25 days. Your sentence will be the main one (ie I altered the only Marriage tag I had to your sentence, then I added version 2, which of course is not allocated to anyone). I will have a play with that once I understand why your version works and mine does not. I am thinking in the 2nd option I should ONLY state the age of the focus principal something like - Anna Abbs married Robert Fields, son of William Fields, on Fri. 24 Dec 1847 in All Saints' Church, Sheringham, Norfolk, England, when she was 21 I will gradually change some people (those who have only the year as a birth date) over to the new tag, even if it remains as is. This solution has the added benefit of varying the output, something to be valued I think. A few pedantly fully spelled out ages is a small price to pay for that variety. SHIRLEY
  2. Age at marriage

    Jim, you are correct, your sentence worked. It is early here, and I have not had my cuppa yet. I will compare what you gave me to what I had, so I can understand what I did wrong, in an hour or so. Thanks. Not all my dates are complete. I sometimes have no birth data, a date range or an about date. In which case I want that sentence part to be skipped.
  3. Age at marriage

    I have not haunted this board for some time, but I can assure you I am a seasoned user of TMG. Could someone please assist with this conundrum with the AGE of the Principles. In a standard marriage tag I use the sentence - [P] married [PO] <[PARO]> <[DD]> <[L]><, when they were [A1E] and [A2E] old><. The ceremony was witnessed by [WO]><. [M]> Note there are no witnesses entered for this marriage, The Captain does not have parents entered into the DB, he only has a year of birth not his birthday, and there is no memo text. I am confident these elements are working as intended, For the Bride the output is - She married Captain Thomas Maybee on Thursday, 28 March 1850 in Melville Street Chapel, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, when they were 32 years and 26 years, 9 months and 14 days old For the Groom - He married Fanny Cato, daughter of Joseph Cato and Frances (Fanny) Cox, on Thursday, 28 March 1850 in Melville Street Chapel, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, when they were 32 years and 26 years, 9 months and 14 days old. I change just 2 characters in the sentence to this - [P] married [PO] <[PARO]> <[DD]> <[L]><, when they were [A1] and [A2] old><. The ceremony was witnessed by [WO]><. [M]> This is the new output - no ages appear at all........... Bride - Fanny Cato married Captain Thomas Maybee on Thu. 28 Mar 1850 in Melville Street Chapel, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Groom - Captain Thomas Maybee married Fanny Cato, daughter of Joseph Cato and Frances (Fanny) Cox, on Thu. 28 Mar 1850 in Melville Street Chapel, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. The name/pronoun use is not an issue, it is working as intended. There are a couple of issues I need help with. (1) I am trying to get just the year of the age of the bride and groom. Terry tells me (http://tmg.reigelridge.com/variables.htm) [A1] and [A2] produces the age in years for First Principle and Second Principle. He also tells me [A1E] and [A2E] produces the full age in years, months, days, but may not depending upon the date of birth and marriage as entered. As you can see the latter works as he says but the former does not. If there is no alternative, I can live with the exact age in my sentence but would prefer not to. I cannot for the life of me see why this would not work. Note that if either party had less information for birth date, the age is truncated as expected. (2) I want the ages to follow the order of the names. At the moment in both options above the Groom's age is first and the Bride's is second. When I access the marriage tag I can see that the Principals change depending upon my access point, as intended. Again I can sort of live with this, by rewording my output to The groom was... and the bride was ..... I would really like to fix at least one or the other of these issues, as both together just makes the narrative too clunky. For my testing I edited my sentences by deleting just the 2 characters. input and output data are cut/paste from the actual DB. This couple is an example, all other marriage tags are the same.
  4. spell checker

    People, I am a long time user of TMG, and I plan to keep on using it forever. The ONE thing I would like to tweek is the spell checker. I DO NOT use Word. Instead I use LibraOffice, a free alternative. I DO use the internal spell checker in TMG, but it really is an 'unfriendly dog''. As far as I can tell, there are only 2 options - Word or internal. I know I can type into a external app, spell check, then paste into my memo fields etc,, but I find that this time consuming process is worse than putting up with the interal spell checker. Is there a work around where I can use any other external freely available spell checker? I am looking for something that invokes from within TMG. I am willing to install any other Free Office or word processing app. I am NOT willing to pay Mictosoft, or anyone else, significantly more for a spell checker than I paid for my genealogy program. Obviously TMG is somehow configured to use Word spell checker if I have Word installed, and I am willing (and more or less able) to amend configuration files at a deep level to get this to work. I am, however and alas, not clever enough to explore the ineer workings of the app to find out where the spell checker is invoked... SHIRLEY
  5. Dear moderators - unfortunately this is still occuring I upgraded to 8.08, and the error has remained the same. A little more info now we have new role design - 1. In the tag that produces the error I have, since the upgrade, chosen one of my custom witness roles as the default witness - Note this is an example only, I believe all tags produce the error, 2. If I use any of the one-by-one methods of attaching witnesses, the role I set as the default appears correctly. 3. When I choose to add multiple witnesses using the extended pick list, the control key and a mouse click - the role that appears on all the witnesses after I choose OK is 'witness', which needs to be changed The workaround of "close tag after choosing the mulpiple witnesses, reopen to edit" still works OK, but of course this means the REALLY useful new option of the default witness does not work for me when it is most needed Thanks SHIRLEY
  6. I am using UK version 8.04 on XP. I recently reinsalled everything after a crash. This error happened before and after the crash. The steps outlined below occur consistently. I do NOT know if the error occurs in other circumstances (ie none customised roles and sentences). I can produce screen shots if needed 1. Enter a new tag that has customised witness roles with customised sentences. Fill in date, location, 2 principals (whose roles are also customised) 2. Use the add multiple witnesses button. 3. Choose multiple witnesses by holding the control key down and mouse clicking. Click OK 4. The result will be a list, which I need to edit or accept. 5. I accept the list, and it populates the witness pane within the tag entry box. The default 'witness' role has been chosen for me. The formatting of the witness pane looks correct. 6. I need to change the 'role' of one or more of the witnesses. When I click on any witness, I get [[array dimensions are invalid 317 SPREVIEW]] error message. Clicking IGNORE and closing the tag, then reopening the tag, allows me to change the role. My work around is to close the tag immediately I exist the pick list, then reopen it to change the roles. This always works without any issues. An extension of the above occurs if I need to add more witnesses. AND I think this will point the developers to where the issue is. 1. Open an esisting tag which has existing witnesses. I see a list of these wiitnesses in the Witness pane, farmatted correctly and 'in line'. 2. Click add multiple witness button, use crtl/click to choose the witnesses. After I click OK, the list of witnesses which appears in the witness pane (the old ones as well as the new ones) are 'garbled' and out of line. 3. I do NOT see the array error. Opening and closing the tag cleans it all up, and my choices are ALWAYS retained. Choosing witnesses one at a time, using the 'add new witness' button works fine. SHIRLEY
  7. I created new roles within a custom tag. I set up witnesses within the tag, using multiple roles. I have witness memos set up was well as a sentence using the roles for the 2 principles. When I run validate file integrity, the pop up says NO PROBLEMS FOUND, but sometimes the role is changed to 'witness' instead of my custom role. AS AN EXAMPLE - My principle sentence is - [:CR:]In the census taken on the night of 7th April 1861 [P] was the wife of the head of the household, [PO]. The address was [L]. <[M].> <Their children [RF:with par] were living with them><Her children [RF:with moth] were living with her><, [M2]>[:CR:] My memo for the principle is - ||along with 2 grandchildren [R:WITNESS], and Mark's wife [R:WIT2] I have 6 witnesses. 3 are 'with par' - 2 are 'Witness' - 1 is 'wit2'. (note the case is an exact copy) Sentence reads correctly before the validation - In the census taken on the night of 7th April 1861 Caroline Chapman was the wife of the head of the household, Mark Culling. The address was Campsall, Yorkshire, England. Their children Mark, Honour and Laura were living with them, along with 2 grandchildren Arthur Mark Culling and Caroline Louisa Culling, and Mark's wife Sarah Harriet Moore. After validation 'wit2' has been changed to 'Witness' - In the census taken on the night of 7th April 1861 Caroline Chapman was the wife of the head of the household, Mark Culling. The address was Campsall, Yorkshire, England. Their children Mark, Honour and Laura were living with them. I have 7 custom tags that read the same except for the census date. I do not have this issue with them all. I can confirm that at least one of the others retains the role selected after a file validation. I cannot see a difference in the files, but just in case I will copy/paste as above for one that did not get changed. Principle sentence - [:CR:]In the census taken on the night of 3rd April 1881 [P] was the wife of the head of the household, [PO]. The address was [L]. <[M].> <Their children [RF:with par] were living with them><Her children [RF:with moth] were living with her><, [M2]>[:CR:] Memo - Mary Ann's daughter-in-law [R:WITNESS] and [R:WIT2] are using the name of BAYFIELD but in all civil registrations of this family they are named WOODHOUSE Sentence reads correctly before AND after validation. - In the census taken on the night of 3rd April 1881 Mary Ann Woodhouse was the wife of the head of the household, William Plane Hodds. The address was 5 Wellington Place, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England. Mary Ann's daughter-in-law Susannah Woodhouse and William Henry Woodhouse are using the name of BAYFIELD but in all civil registrations of this family they are named WOODHOUSE. Her children Ann and Walter were living with her. The underlined portions have been cut/pasted from my database. I am using the UK version, and I am using the database to produce a web site. I set up the tags and the roles using 'copy' then edit wherever I could. I have copied the UK sentence over to US, again using copy/paste. At times I edited the US sentence and copied it over to UK, but I have no idea on which roles. Certainly I would NOT have been consistent within any specific tag. i.e. 1861 was NOT all copied UK to US and 1881 was NOT all copied US to UK (or vice-versa) I filtered my data to show 1861 census that had wit2 roles, and (after the validation) came up with zero. I changed ONE census tag, and ran the filter again, and it came up with just the people with the tag I had edited. I ran more tests that PROVE that only the tags for the years 1861 and 1871 are effected. This assumes that the issue is Tag-wide, as I do not know if 'some tags' in other years are effected. Gut feel is that it IS Tag-wide All help will be appreciated. This is NOT urgent as I can live without using wit2 and wit3 for 1861 and 1871. I would, though, like to understand what I did wrong for these 2 tags, as I have plans for more custom sentences in the future. SHIRLEY
  8. Sorry people - but I have the same issue as others. I downloaded upgrade from inside the app and installed it. It failed and it rolled itself back, and rolled out the whole ver 8 I had been using up until that time. The error was that installation had failed and I should contact support. I had a look and followed the reinstall instructions in the forum - a number of times. First time I downloaded incorrect US version, I use UK version. I have made a few attempts, all to no avail. I am renaming (NOT deleting) the old directories in c:\programs and in C:\Documents and Settings. I have also looked in revo uninstaller and ver 8 does not get a mention, so I cant run that. Anyway, both US and UK versions give me the same install error EXCEPT that once I got this - TOC19.ocx HR RESULT - 2147220991 <failed to ???> (note ??? is me as I cant remember exactly what it said). After I clicked OK I then got the same error as before and as everyone else is reporting Please help.
  9. Thanks people. You have given me all I needed. I first wanted to make CERTAIN that there was NO way to get what I hope to achieve by crafting a sentence WITHOUT using additional roles - and I now know I can't. Then you have given me ideas on how to do what I want using roles. I will check out Terry's Census Tags and review your suggestios Michael, before crafting my roles and their sentences. The good thing is that I don't HAVE to change my existing format. I can just add a new set of census tags, which I use for new people and to gradually move existing people over to. I have a panel in Second Site that lists addesses by date of a person, using census and voter tags (regardless of principal or witness roles), and I don't want to risk mucking that up. I think that will just mean I include the new census tags into the ones that show up in the panel. Thanks again - SHIRLEY
  10. Sorry people this is NOT what I typed. Gremlins again.... Using a variable, is there a way to get : In the census taken on the night of April 2nd 1911 Ethel Utting was included in the household of ?????????Bracken Brae, Thorpe Hamlet, Norwich, Norfolk, England. ??????? should read "her father <brother> <uncle> <etc> SHIRLEY
  11. I use Second Site to produce a web site. I have custom tags for the census. A portion of one of the sentences currently is : In the census taken on the night of April 2nd 1911 Ethel Utting was included in the household of Stephen William Utting in Bracken Brae, Thorpe Hamlet, Norwich, Norfolk, England. Using a variable, is there a way to get : In the census taken on the night of April 2nd 1911 Ethel Utting was included in the household of Stephen William Utting, her father <brother> <uncle> <step father> <etc>, in Bracken Brae, Thorpe Hamlet, Norwich, Norfolk, England. If not, could someone point me to where I can obtain some ideas on how to set up roles to achieve similar. Of course I would prefer the variable, as I have thousands of census tags already ;-) I only use the above tags for people who are related to the head of the house, but the relationship could be by blood OR by marriage. Note that where a dual+ relationship exists (and in some of those Norfolk villages they surely do) I would be happy to have the closest relationship in the sentence, but it would be GREAT if they could all be mentioned, in order of closeness. I have created separate census tags for people in 'institutions' (prison, ship or hotel etc) and for those living/working within a family home (servant, visitor, boarder), so a witness NOT being related to the principal is not an issue. I only use 1 principal, all other people in the household are witnesses. www.shirley-elrick.com Thanks SHIRLEY
  12. spell checker

    Good morning. I an having issues with the spell checker functionality. When set up to use internal dictionary I find most of the time I do not get the 'correct option if the list of suggestions. i.e. likey produced a list of 15 or so, but NOT likely. I changed to work dictionery, and it takes a long whiole top load, and opens a word doc. Is there a way to use the word dictionary without having the application open?
  13. I often have more than one item to add to exhibits at the same time. The ability to choose multiples files would save many keystrokes. Thanks SHIRLEY
  14. Good morning all. Is there a way to insert the pound symbol into memos? I have a keyboard designed for Australia (just kidding - must be USofA), and of course it does not have the pound sign. I want to record the lack of wealth of those rellies who left wills. Currently it says 'less than 100 pounds' - understandable but not as easy to the eye than 'pound symbol'100. I use Second site, so if the answer will not work with html, then please tell me so. Thanks SHIRLEY
  15. I purchased the Gold version of TMG many years ago, before the UK version was available. Over the years I have upgraded as newer versions became available. The version I am now running is V7.03 (GOLD) Could you please tell me 1. Is it technicially possible to change from one version to the other. I am running 3 databases, one 'normal' family, one 'one name study' and one I am compiling of the ruling families of Europe from 1000BC (give or take a few millenia). All three have the same basic structure, I have not made massive changes to fields. 2. If it is technically possible, what will it cost? I am hoping that it won't be the full price of $59.00. I am a registered user of TMG and can supply my serial number.
×