Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-02 > 1139211729

From: "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <>
Subject: Re: Medieval Lines to Imperial Rome
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:49:49 -0400
References: <> <> <002101c6293a$9e9eff60$> <ds2klf$a9a$> <006501c629fd$50066960$> <ds55ta$3tn$>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Medieval Lines to Imperial Rome

> [S]ince the very last line to Doda, and
> of course the three to Arnulf himself, are dotted, it is pretty
> clear that here we are not talking absolute proof.
> Doug McDonald

Yes, and, to tie your post & JL's together - that is THE point of the dotted
lines. To separate hypotheses from certitudes. :) that is why I prefer
charts to text formats, which latter do not allow so much for this readily
recognized distinction. Unfortunately, the entire field of DFA's is
(over)populated with dotted and broken lines. I feel certain that the
genealogy which Dave & I presented in 'The Anicii of Gaul and Rome' is
correct. Christian, I know, feels differently. But until proof is
established, (and it seems to be nastily and spitefully to be not
forthcoming), we will continue to accept the unpleasant necessity of
'dashed' lines. Personally, I should like to see a universal acceptance of
a convention of bold (thick/fat) lines for positive relationships, thin
lines for probable relationships, broken lines (dashes) for plausible
relationships, and dots for possible relationships - the varied solidity of
the lines a sort of 'visual onomatopoeia' for the different degrees of
certainty or credibility.

This thread: