TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-05 > 1051902798


From: "Joan Lince" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Standard genealogy report formats (was A little advise please)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 15:13:52 -0400
References: <1d9.8b4f507.2be3495a@aol.com> <006001c310a7$4fe20060$0200a8c0@caroline>


Caroline said (clip)
> After several years on this list, I know that friends in the USA have a
hard
> time getting their heads round our laissez-faire approach & the fact that
we
> have no Mills or Lackey to tell us how to cite our sources (and indeed
would
> bitterly resent it if anyone tried). Perhaps it would help to remember
that
> we have no written constitution or codified system of law either - this
way
> of doing things is something deeply entrenched in our national character.
>
Caroline,
To me, and I think to many other people, the main point of the genealogy
formats that are "standard" in the USA, such as that first published in the
NEHGR (New England Historical and Genealogical Register) over 150 years ago,
is not that anyone is requiring us to conform, but that it's easier to read
genealogies that are in a format you are already familiar with. Years ago
someone took the trouble to develop a format that presents a lot of
information clearly (as do many other formats), and published it in the
NEHGR (also called the Register). Partly because of the clarity of the
format and partly because of the general scholarly excellence of the
Register, that format came to be accepted as a standard. It has evolved -
early versions of the Register format are nowhere near as sophisticated as
today's standard. (If anyone reading this is not familiar with the "Register
format", TMG offers it as one of the Journal Narrative reports, at least in
v 4.0d, which is what I use at present.)
Many other formats are used in the USA (witness the many formats TMG
provides). The differences have to do with personal preferences, and with
the purpose of the presentation. But except for the relatively rare occasion
when a genealogist is preparing material for publication in a particular
journal, there is no one telling you you have to do things one way or
another. Mills and Lackey are not books of regulations but help for those
who would do a less good job of citing sources if Mills and Lackey didn't
exist.
I think the greatest virtue of a standard is that one can pick up a
genealogy that is presented in standard format and know where to look for
key information, without having to spend extra time becoming familiar with
the author's system.
I like using the Register format and the more others use it the happier
I am. But I can also empathize with others, for example, Swedish and Finnish
genealogists, or people needing to submit pedigrees to a genealogical
society in a certain format, for whom another format is the most familiar or
the most needed.
Joan Lince


This thread: