Here are the definitions listed in the American Heritage Dictionary at:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/
NOUN : Abbr. Twp. or Tp. or T 1. A subdivision of a county in most northeast
and Midwest U.S. states, having the status of a unit of local government
with varying governmental powers. 2. A public land surveying unit of 36
sections or 36 square miles. 3. An ancient administrative division of a
large parish in England. 4. A racially segregated area in South Africa
established by the government as a residence for people of color.
American Heritage - while not up to the Oxford, of course - is among the
best of US dictionaries, especially for broad technical definitions. In this
instance, the first definition applies (in the US) and the second. The third
definition provides the background for the concept, as English settlers
brought old traditions with them to the new world.
In the US, we normally only refer to a township when there is no formally
organized community, so that township literally takes the place of a city
name. For that reason I always include the word "township" when appropriate
to identify the fact that it's not an incorporated town. So you don't need
an extra field or space for US references. Just use it when no town is
involved, but identify the fact that it is a township to help in locating
it.
jcl
John Lancaster
Freelance Business/Tech Writer
Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webpage: http://home.swbell.net/jclanc/
---- Snip ----
> The term "township" is not quite the same as we use "town" in
> Australia, as
> far as I can determine. It refers to "a subdivision of a county, usually
> having some authority for local government". So, in that context
> it would be
> the equivalent of what we call in Australia a "shire council". There are
> many places in Australia for example where a "town" is situated within the
> boundaries of a "shire" but has a different name, e.g. Ayr in
> Queensland is
> in the Burdekin Shire Council area. You probably could name similar ones
> over your way, I guess. Our US contributors may be able to explain more
> accurately just what a "township" is in their usage today(?).
>
> Commas - leading or otherwise - are an essential part of the
> database. Yes,
> they do look slightly odd in reports. And if you do have "picky"
> non-researching relatives, suggest that they start compiling their own
> family records :-). However, persist with your use of "commas"
> just for the
> consistency that they provide for your record keeping.
>
>
> Lance in Brisbane
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cathy
> Pinner
> Sent: Saturday, 2 December 2000 10:02 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Commas and Abbreviations
>
>
> Hi List,
>
> This discussion about commas and abbreviations in locations has been very
> US based although it arose out of a discussion on making sure your
> genealogy data was universally understood.
>
> I don't live in the US and have a very hazy idea of what you mean by a
> county. It is just not true that people will know you are talking about a
> county just because of the position it has in an address (with or without
> leading commas). You need to add the term or at least a page explaining
> your location entries.
> The added distinction made between a township and a village and the
> suggestion that a township can't be found on a map is simply
> incomprehensible. I live in a country town in Australia. Both the town and
> the area around it are known as Beverley. If I wanted to indicate that
> someone actually lives in the town and not on a farm I would say they live
> in the township - which you can certainly find on a map.
>
> Leading commas may be very helpful in the location field but in reports
> printed for non-genealogists (like most of my reports are printed for
> interested family members who will never actually do any research) leading
> commas just indicate a mistake in proof reading (I can hear my brother's
> scathing comments already :-)).
>
> The expected readership really does make a difference to the way you print
> and record your data.
>
> Regards,
> Cathy
> Western Australia
>
> >And, we also agree that there's NO ambiguity in Reports unless leading
> >commas are suppressed. But, Tom wants to suppress leading commas, and
> needs
> >to add the word "County" so clarity can be maintained in Reports without
> >them. My questions are "Why would one want to suppress leading commas?,"
> >and "Is the gain worth the effort and potential confusion?"
>
> >And getting back to the question, "Why would some people go to
> the trouble
> >of adding the word "County" just so they could suppress leading
> commas? I
> >can only guess that one reason might be that they were using
> Position-1 for
> >DETAILS, (Church, Hospital & Cemetery names), which are mostly blank and
> >cause a lot of leading commas.
>
> >Well, I hope the explanation's been persuasive enough to
> convince some, if
> >not everyone, to abandon the word, "County." But if not, I hope it's at
> >least been enlightening, and shortens your enrollment in the "Genealogy
> >School of Hard Knocks." While GSHK provides a good education,
> you want to
> >graduate before you're too old and beat up to use the knowledge.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Clif
>
>
