Re: [Gramps-devel] =?utf-8?q?New_type_of_relationship_between_mother?= =?utf-8?q?=09and=09faather?=

[Peter L. <pet...@te...>]

This is very complicated. The meaning of a word in one language/culture mig=
ht=20
not be exactly the same in another language/culture, when we talk about=20
relationships of this type.=20

BTW: How should "marriage" be interpreted?
=2D the event when you marry someone
or
=2D the "institution" from the event to divorce/death
or both depending of the circumstances.
In Swedish we have two words. I see now that I have done some mistakes in t=
he=20
translation.

And as Benny says backward compatibility is important.

/Peter


Den Saturday 26 January 2008 12.24.28 skrev J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me:
> > "maybe they should use UNION instead of MARRIAGE"
> > Seems not to be wrong
>
> True, Marriage is just an event. Is is a wording interpretation ...
>
> > Now in Gramps we have the following relationships:
> > - Married
> > - Civil Union
> > - Unknown
> > - Unmarried
>
> Why not ?
>
> - Religious Union
> - Civil Union
> - Union
>     (one or both : religious, civil), maybe was generic word : "married"
> - Unknow
> - Free Union
> - Custom
>
> Also, we may add other child <-> parents relationships !!!
>
> * legitimate child (during marriage)
> * natural child (parents not married)
>
> ...
>
> OK, I will stop here.
>
> J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me a =C3=A9crit :
> >>  * Cohabitation
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_%28government%29
> >
> > OK, seems french speaking people use "union libre" for cohabitation
> > (free union)
> >
> > Also, someone said to me : "most genealogical program generate mistakes
> > with family relationships", "maybe they should use UNION instead of
> > MARRIAGE"
> >
> > Seems not to be wrong, but not certain that GEDCOM managers agree ...
> >
> > J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me a =C3=A9crit :
> >>> For example in the Descendant Report "... had a relationship (sambo or
> >>> whatever the custom relationship is called) with ..."
> >>
> >> a new headache for translators, no ?
> >> What would be the core string ?
> >>
> >> * Separated
> >> * Cohabitation
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_%28government%29
> >>
> >> What about concubinage ?
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage
> >>
> >> Peter Landgren a =C3=A9crit :
> >>>> You may add a custom relationship/event on current editors.
> >>>> You database will add this choices on your lists.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I know this, but some reports looks silly then. The "Family Group
> >>> Report" shows empty space for "Marriage:" with dates for the
> >>> relationship (sambo) under the empty marriage box.
> >>>
> >>> One way to solve this, could be to add the type of custom relationship
> >>> within paranthesis after. For example in the Descendant Report "... h=
ad
> >>> a relationship (sambo or whatever the custom relationship is called)
> >>> with ..."
> >>>
> >>> It looks OK in the "Relationships View".
> >>>
> >>>> But if you generate a new database/Family Tree, you need to add cust=
om
> >>>> words, once more.
> >>>
> >>> Understood.
> >>>
> >>> /Peter
> >>>
> >>>> I use a custom event role type on my primary database : the declaran=
t.
> >>>> I just use "witness" for marriage or Baptism, when center
> >>>> individual/people is/are present. For me, "Declarant" is on
> >>>> certificates.
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Landgren a =C3=A9crit :
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This might have been discussed before. In Sweden we have a type of
> >>>>> relationship between two people called "sambo". It is something
> >>>>> between normal married and unmarried. It is regulated by Swedish Law
> >>>>> (2003:376). This type of relationship is very common today in Sweden
> >>>>> and neigbouring countries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> According to Wikipedia it is called Cohabitation.
> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If this "sambo" relationship ends, you are not divorced but
> >>>>> "separated". So that has to added to the events list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now in Gramps we have the following relationships:
> >>>>> - Married
> >>>>> - Civil Union
> >>>>> - Unknown
> >>>>> - Unmarried
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I assume Married include both religious marriage in church or simil=
ar
> >>>>> place and civil marriage someware else.
> >>>>> Civil Union  ~ Registrered Partnership?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So for GRAMPS to function better in the Nordic countries, at least,=
 I
> >>>>> suggest that
> >>>>> Cohabitation is added to the relationship list
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> Separation is  added to the events list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The reason for my suggestion is that this is  a well defined
> >>>>> relationship. Even by law in some countries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any objections?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Peter