I jumped conclusions to early... I did not know TMG as well as I would like to know it.
As for the roles: TMG does support as many roles as UFT does but the appraoch is different. Here is the answer I got the same day! From TMG:
This is a common misconception among UFT users but it has not been true since the original release of TMG in 1992.
UFT can designate some participants in an event as "principal."TMG does the same except that instead of calling everyone else "non-principals" it calls them "witnesses".It is just a difference in terminology and has nothing to do with _roles_ which is a different issue in both UFT and TMG.That is, UFT isn't limited to two roles because it happens to designate some participants as "principals" and some not principals...and neither is TMG.
In TMG, you can have any number of people associated with an event in any number of roles.That is, in addition to husband and wife, you can link the minister, best man, bride's maid, and all of the member of the congregation if you like...and you can individual designate their roles in the event.
Where TMG v3.x diverges from UFT is _how_ you designate roles (not how many).
TMG users haven't found any necessity for a LIST of "legal" roles for each event type, as you have in UFT.They build a sentence template like "[W] was the best man at the marriage of [P] and [PO]..." and that suffices.(TMG's event templates use different syntax but the concept is the same as in UFT).Aside from the desire that roles are communicated in the narrative, there hasn't been any outcry for the need to "label" people (as to roles).
That said, however, TMG v4.0a supports an optional "list" of roles from which you can choose (and add/delete, etc.).If you prefer to use it, great.If you think that entering genealogical data is tedious enough and you'd rather be tromping through a cemetery then you can do without the extra step.