On 09/18/2012 10:36 PM, Martin Steer wrote:With the parents, to use the archaic term, "shacking up"?
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:26:50AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Of course. My emphasis was on separate. Benny said that separate
>>> families should be made for a bastard child. However,
>>> i) a bastard child could well be raised by its biological parents, and
>> Then he's not much of a bastard...
> In this context, the only interesting sense of 'bastard' is 'a person
> born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child'. There is no reason to
> assume that such a child would not be raised by its parents. I could
> cite a number who were so raised from my own ancestry.
:) That usually winds up causing extra work, though.
>>> ii) in my (apparently aberrant) usage, 'family' does not mean 'people
>>> who live together', but rather something like 'people with a certain
>>> kind of documented familial connection'.
>> I don't see how you square that with your earlier statement:
>> Why would you make a separate family for each of the parents of
>> a bastard child?
> A question, not a statement.
> I don't use the Gramps family construct to organise people into
> households. I use it to organise people into genealogical families, so
> far as I'm able. For me that means births, adoptions, etc. I don't have
> much knowledge of the household arrangements of most of the people I'm
> interested in, and probably never will have. And yes, it does seem that
> I'm misusing the system, but that's what it's there for.
So you have *two* entries for "bastard 1"?
> +some family+
> bio father
> bio mother
> bastard 1
> bastard 2
> legit 1
> +some other family+
> adoptive father
> adoptive mother
> bastard 1
> By way of an aside, I think that it's an error, and it's certainly
> tedious, to try to capture intimate social detail in database form. The
> detail is in the documents and notes.