TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-01 > 1010616179


From: "Caroline Gurney" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Double dates
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 22:42:59 -0000
References: <005201c19890$ea315a20$0502a8c0@roalok1.mi.home.com>


Doug,

Leave them as double dates. That is the only way to avoid ambiguity.

If you enter only a single date, either 7 Feb 1739, as it appears in the
document, or 7 Feb 1740, as it would be in modern terms, how are your
readers to know which choice you made? They could interpret 7 Feb 1739 as a
modernisation of 7 Feb 1738. Or they might modernise 7 Feb 1740 to 7 Feb
1741. That way error & confusion lies.

For this reason, genealogists in the UK are very strict about using the
double date format.

Caroline Gurney
Portsmouth, UK



----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Gordon" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:07 PM
Subject: [TMG] Double dates


> I have a number of dates in my database such as "3 Feb 1739/40" due to the
well-known start/end of year situation at that time. What I'm wondering is
if I should leave these slightly irregular dates in my database, or if I
should just go ahead and specify them to be correct vs. our current
calendar. In other words, the above date would be "3 Feb 1740" according to
our current calendrical standards. What is the standard for handling these
dates?
>
> Doug Gordon



This thread: