TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-07 > 1026136416


From: "Ted Meikle" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] 5.02 relationship tags
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:53:36 -0500
References: <BBELINAJCPNPOALLDGONOELEDFAA.clcasper@sprynet.com> <3D270E0F.C13F064A@sbcglobal.net>


Diana Powell wrote:
>
[snip]
> In the meantime I am toying with adding a suffix to the primary name of
> everyone who descends through an adopted line that says (adopted line)
> or something similar. Again, this would only need to appear as the
> first usage of the name and after that a name var without the suffix can
> be assigned for better reading.

I appreciate your creativity in trying to come up with a
workaround and your sharing it with the list. However, this
idea will not work if child is a biological child of one
parent and an adoptive child of the other, because it will
not distinguish which line is adoptive. (Nor could you
really put a suffix on the parent's name such as "adoptive
father," because he may have other kids that are
biological.)

Also, without seeing the whole line, a reader could be
misled by the system you are considering. If the adoptive
child's own child also carries an "adopted" suffix on his or
her name, it would appear that he or she was adopted by his
or her own biological parents.

Finally, it seems to focus on a view of geneaology as going
only downstream. My father's father was raised by his
(adoptive) father and his biological mother. From my point
of view the relevancy of the adoption runs "upstream" from
my great-grandfather, not downstream from my grandfather. I
am sure I would draw a lot of puzzled questions if I
published a genealogy that showed me, all my cousins and all
our children with the suffix "adopted" after our names!

Ted Meikle

This thread: