TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2011-03 > 1301276437


From: Rick Van Dusen <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] re irregular date
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:40:37 -0700
References: <2011327194822.162864@Terry> <4D8FE3C0.50903@sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D8FE3C0.50903@sprynet.com>


I would not tell you you're wrong in that. I find no fault in your
reasoning.

========
I was just watching an episode of the old "Black Sheep Squadron". As
Boyington and Col. Lard are parting, with great danger ahead, Lard says,
"We have different ways of doing things." Then he adds, "My way is right
and your way is wrong." (But he does smile.)




Darrell A. Martin wrote:
> Terry and Rick:
>
> Regarding a source that says a death occurred on "Feb 29, 1767" I did
> not specify what I would do in the event that a careful examination of
> the original provided no new clues. We all agree that in the end, anyone
> viewing our data must be able to see that the original says, "Feb 29,
> 1767". Anything else is misinformation.
>
> My choice would be to enter the date into the Tag date field as
>
> ca Feb 1767
>
> Here is why.
>
> - The original source says Feb., so if the choice is truly balanced
> between a February date and a March date, I would go with the one that
> matches the source text more closely. I readily admit it is not
> mathematically more accurate.
>
> - I think a qualifier of some kind is required. In my data (which I
> make explicit in all my output for public consumption) "ca" is an
> approximation based on at least some direct evidence; but "say" is
> limited to placeholder dates used for identification and derived solely
> from circumstantial evidence.
>
> - I would not include the day of the month because to me, the
> ambiguity of the records suggest the possibility of a larger error. To
> say "ca 28 Feb 1767" would hint that the actual date was within,
> perhaps, a week either way. Consider that the writer may have written
> the wrong MONTH instead of the wrong DAY.
>
> Darrell


This thread: