TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2001-01 > 0980544013
From: Richard Cleaveland <>
Subject: [TMG] sort order
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:20:13 -0600
> >Dick said:
> >If one is citing a source which says something, it is presumptions to
> assume it means something >else than the common interpretation of that
> language at the time it was written. "After 1928" >means just that.
>Since your second sentence doesn't assume any particular time period, I
>guess you believe that the common interpretation of "after 1928" is ALWAYS
>"on or after 1 Jan 1929" and that it NEVER means "in or after
>1928." Those seem to me to be two legitimate interpretations and I don't
>think in the context of genealogical evidence that anyone can claim to
>know what it always (or even usually) means.
I could have meant that, but didn't. What I meant was that we should be
honest in our QUOTATIONS. If the source writer said "MJHLJH" I would
enter "MJHLJH" and "after 1928" in my sentence above is just an example of
that. If, on the other hand, I had done some analysis and reached a
conclusion, I would use my preferred logic: between A and C is B, not ABC,
and 1928 is 1928 all year. What comes after A? Not ABC...Z but BC...Z Put
another way: between Baton Rouge, LA and Houston, TX (where I am now) can
not be IN either one of those cities.
> it seems much more common under those circumstances to find that the
> author recorded the birth of the child as "1929" and the the death of
> both father and mother as "after 1929." You don't find that to be the case?
Sure. If the author provided no further explanation of the death dates I
would use them as cited (with a low surety or comment to reflect my cynicism).
See you in Dallas.... Will I get 4.0d? :-)
ROOTS Users Group of Arlington, VA at http://www.rootsusers.org/
|[TMG] sort order by Richard Cleaveland <>|