Using "is" or "was" for parent-child relationships

Question

This may be just a philosophical question. I found a couple of conversations in the past discussing this topic and I wanted to ensure the question was clarified to get better feedback on the context for posing my question.

Thread 1 and Thread 2

I saw a lot of great positions for using past tense in general when one or both of the people were dead. However, in this context, I am only asking to think about the parent-child relationship aspect of the question.

I also saw a lot of great positions for stating the relationship without using the verb, and I think that is fine as well. But I have run into times when the sentence gets a bit long depending upon the other facts I'm trying to get into the paragraph. But I will look for opportunities to use that format when it does not get cumbersome.

When I think about the parent-child relationship specific to genealogical studies, we are all striving to prove the relationship between them. When Mary gives birth to Polly, there is a genealogical relationship that will never go away. They will ALWAYS be linked regardless of their stage in life after birth. Therefore, since our primary task is to define those relationships, it would seem that the relationship transcends death. Polly is the daughter of Mary from a genealogical perspective. If I say Polly was the daughter of Mary, then who is she the daughter of now? I can't say no one, as she would therefore not exist. So it would seem that Polly will always be the daughter of Mary, regardless of the living status of either one.

Certainly, I can use the past tense for either one of them in just about any other context, i.e., my mother was a seamstress, my father was a farmer, my daughter had blue eyes. These are all states that change through life. But the fact of their linkage through birth will not.

Of course, I truly don't think any reader of these profiles will be confused by any of the three uses mentioned, but I'd still love to hear other opposing or supporting opinions to my thinking because you never know what you don't know. 

Answer 1

Not adding to the philosophical question, but for those who can't decide which way they feel comfortable with, how about using "Martin was born to John X and Mary T" ?

Answer 2

The advice given to me by my English Comp teacher was to not confound something that is otherwise simple. My relationship to my father will always be the same. The relationship with my father has changed since I'm still living. Keep it simple. Be consistent.

Comments

I am with the ʻkeep it simpleʻ idea.

Reading obituaries can lead to much confusion in the tense of verbs.

Answer 3

In English, we usually speak about dead people in the past tense, whether we're describing their characteristics (he was blond) or their accomplishments (she wrote a book). After the person dies the book still exists, but we still refer to having created it in the past. 

In your genealogy example: She was the mother of five children. Her mother was Jane. We say "was Jane" not because Jane isn't her mother any longer, but because Jane isn't any longer (i.e., Jane doesn't exist any longer).

Sometimes though, we use "historical present tense." It is purely optional. The choice has to do with how you want to tell a story and nothing to do with whether a situation, condition or relationship continues into the future.

We use it to make the story seem more immediate and to draw the reader or listener into the story. Imagine telling a story to some friends over dinner. You start by saying, "So there I was..." and very quickly you may switch to present tense. In verbal storytelling this is almost instinctual, partly because you are describing what happened from your perspective as it happened. 

You also hear and see it a lot in news headlines. "Coming up next at 11 o'clock: Rebels attack the capital in ——" Fluent speakers understand that at 11pm we're going to be told about a rebel attack that already happened. Second language speakers may see that tense switching as saying the attack is scheduled for 11pm.

Briefly:

• If you're writing a short, factual biography, stick to the past tense. 
• If you include a story or explanation of some kind feel free to switch tenses. ("We know that he was __ ... because in 1736 he sells land and then he moves to...")
• Consider your audience. If the bio may be of interest to people from countries where English isn't the primary language, simplify your structure to make it more understandable.

Normally this is the bit after dispensing advice where people declare they aren't lawyers or doctors. However, I am a professional editor and writer and occasionally teach writing to business people. My advice may be worth what you paid for it, but it's also the same thing I'd tell you if you were paying me.

Comments

Ha!  Thank’s for this. Just last night I was going through the umpeenth draft of a book, and came upon a passage (a foot note, actually) in which I changed tense several times. I was like, “why did I do this, and why does it read reasonably well when, by law, it shouldn’t!”  Ta da!  Your comment explains what my poor brain would not have fathomed. Thank you.  I appreciate it. (I’ll continue to be vigilant, but at least I now know what to look for, and why.)

---

You're welcome, Gregory.

For everyone, I have one more suggestion: Try changing the structure to sound more like something you'd say in every day conversation. We all have a tendency to write things in weird "genealogy-speak" that sounds like we're stuck in 1845. "...and to this union seven children were born." Oof. Then we're battling with un-natural (to us) syntax and need to know every little rule to sort it out.

Let your instincts help you. Instead of Polly was the daughter of Mary, try: Polly's mother was Mary. Your ear will tell you that as a simple factual statement Polly's mother is Mary sounds 'off' if either or both of them are dead.

Answer 4

Personally I use "was" as in "William was the son of John and Mary" but I can see why others might prefer "is" in some cases.

There doesn't seem to be a clear logical reason to say one or the other. You say that the relationship is something will never go away. I'm trying to think of other things about a person that never go away. Gender, nationality etc. I use "was" for those.

My impression is that traditionally biographies have used "was". Wikipedia also uses was as in "William was the son of the unmarried Duke Robert I of Normandy and his mistress Herleva."

We do say "William is dead" though that is not a sentence that gets used in biographies.

Personally when I see "William is the son of John and Mary" it sounds like the sentence is talking more about the WikiTree profile rather than the person.

Answer 5

Hi Kent. Like many such questions, this is one which is not covered by any WikiTree rule. It is a question of style and taste, where profile managers are free to make their own choice—"is", "was", or a circumlocution avoiding a verb. Such choices should be respected by others, and not altered gratuitously.

On the question of length, you can sometimes make a long sentence more elegant by splitting it into two separate ones.

My own opinion (looking forward) is Epicurean: fui, non sum. So I use "was". But I accept the other choices where they appear on managed profiles.

Answer 6

I always write Jack was the son of...He was born in 1758, he was baptised on 25 April 1758 at this church, this place.

He will always be the son of ....but he was baptised on 25 April 1758 at this church, this place. He was a blacksmith,(he is no longer a blacksmith),  he married Mary O'Connor on x date and he had 4 children.

But Jack and his parents no longer exist.

It doesn't bother me if PMs write he is the son of...it just seems a little odd.

I certainly would not suggest that 'is' is incorrect.

Answer 7

When I create a new profile on WikiTree for someone with parents it automatically puts "is a son/daughter of" if I don't put in a death date and "was a son/daughter of" if I do put in a death date. If they have definitely died I manually change the "is" to "was".

Answer 8

I have used "was" and "is" but now, for some reason, I am using "is" when beginning a biography. William's parents are John and Mary Smith; or William is the son of John and Mary Smith. To me a person is always the child of his or her parents; that does not change with death.

Answer 9

I leave tense out of it and say John/Betty was born in YYYY, the son/daughter of father and mother.

Answer 10

If I say Polly was the daughter of Mary, then who is she the daughter of now? I can't say no one, as she would therefore not exist. So it would seem that Polly will always be the daughter of Mary, regardless of the living status of either one.

"Polly was the daughter of Mary" could, grammatically, be interpreted to mean that Polly no longer exists or that Polly exists but is no longer the daughter of Mary. However, since parent-child relationships are presumed to be permanent, the normal interpretation is that Polly died, not that she exists but is no longer Mary's daughter.

Saying Polly is the child of Mary suggests both that Polly is living and that there is a current parent-child relationship, which is incorrect.

Answer 11

Thank you all for an interesting and timely discussion.

When most of the profiles being written were of non-living ancestors, I used "was" as a matter of course.  Recently, however, I have been writing profiles where at least one of the individuals (parents and child) still lived and felt more comfortable using "is" despite knowing that death for all is certain.  Having the two options "was" and "is" to choose from, though grammatically correct, left me feeling a bit uncomfortable.  When my sister died last month, I changed "is" to "was" (both parents are deceased).

Knowing that few if any of the profiles that I write will be edited by anyone either before or after my death, I have decided to write for posterity and use "was".  But that's just me.
That said, I'm not going to go back over 1,000+ profiles to ensure consistency.  As Kent said, "This may be just a philosophical question."