Difference between revisions of "User talk:GSwinson"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Double Dating Confusion == | == Double Dating Confusion == | ||
| − | You have made some statements in | + | You have made some statements in "Family_Talk:Whitney, John (1621-1692)" about birth date corrections. This has to do with "double dating", which was in effect in English-speaking countries from 1582 to 1752. In the "Old Style" calendar, the first day of the year was March 25th, Lady Day, the supposed day of conception of Jesus, counting back nine months from Christmas, and his alleged birth. Thus March was the first month of the year (and also the last!). That makes December the tenth month (decem = ten in Latin), January the eleventh, and February the twelfth. A date such as "1 12m 1646" must then refer to the first of February 1646. Of course, in the "New Style" calendar, the first day of the year was January 1st, so this date would be in 1647 in that reckoning. Hence we come up with the double date 1 Feb 1646/7. This is as stated in the text of John<sup>2</sup> Whitney's page, and carried on to his son Nathaniel<sup>3</sup> Whitney's page, too. There is thus no correction needed in this date. |
You have correctly pointed out an error in Ruth's birth date. "15 1m 1645" means 15 Mar 1645, not Apr. Whether this means 1644/5 or 1645/6 is ambiguous. One would have to analyze the other dates that this recorder wrote as happening in March to find out which he intended. I favor the former, based on the births of her closest siblings: John, 17 Sep 1643, and Nathaniel, 1 Feb 1646/7. 15 Mar 1644/5 is 18 months after the former, and 22.5 months before the latter, which seems more reasonable than the alternative of 30 and 10.5 months. I will correct the text to read "15 Mar 1645 [1644/5]". | You have correctly pointed out an error in Ruth's birth date. "15 1m 1645" means 15 Mar 1645, not Apr. Whether this means 1644/5 or 1645/6 is ambiguous. One would have to analyze the other dates that this recorder wrote as happening in March to find out which he intended. I favor the former, based on the births of her closest siblings: John, 17 Sep 1643, and Nathaniel, 1 Feb 1646/7. 15 Mar 1644/5 is 18 months after the former, and 22.5 months before the latter, which seems more reasonable than the alternative of 30 and 10.5 months. I will correct the text to read "15 Mar 1645 [1644/5]". | ||
Revision as of 21:53, 19 November 2007
This page is where you can leave messages for GSwinson. The next time GSwinson logs in, they'll be alerted that they have messages waiting. You may also select E-mail this user from the toolbox on the left to send them a personal email if they have set up their account to do so.
Double Dating Confusion
You have made some statements in "Family_Talk:Whitney, John (1621-1692)" about birth date corrections. This has to do with "double dating", which was in effect in English-speaking countries from 1582 to 1752. In the "Old Style" calendar, the first day of the year was March 25th, Lady Day, the supposed day of conception of Jesus, counting back nine months from Christmas, and his alleged birth. Thus March was the first month of the year (and also the last!). That makes December the tenth month (decem = ten in Latin), January the eleventh, and February the twelfth. A date such as "1 12m 1646" must then refer to the first of February 1646. Of course, in the "New Style" calendar, the first day of the year was January 1st, so this date would be in 1647 in that reckoning. Hence we come up with the double date 1 Feb 1646/7. This is as stated in the text of John2 Whitney's page, and carried on to his son Nathaniel3 Whitney's page, too. There is thus no correction needed in this date.
You have correctly pointed out an error in Ruth's birth date. "15 1m 1645" means 15 Mar 1645, not Apr. Whether this means 1644/5 or 1645/6 is ambiguous. One would have to analyze the other dates that this recorder wrote as happening in March to find out which he intended. I favor the former, based on the births of her closest siblings: John, 17 Sep 1643, and Nathaniel, 1 Feb 1646/7. 15 Mar 1644/5 is 18 months after the former, and 22.5 months before the latter, which seems more reasonable than the alternative of 30 and 10.5 months. I will correct the text to read "15 Mar 1645 [1644/5]".
Thanks for you sharp eyes and willingness to contribute!
- Robert - Talk to me 06:15, 30 October 2007 (CDT)
Feedback on your feedback
Ropbert -- Thank you for the feedback. You were, of course, correct about the date for Nathaniel; one out of two isn't bad. My first time leaving a comment -- thank you for going easy on me!
Kind regards
- Gary E. Swinson
