Talk:Rufus C. Somerby: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (possible, although wordy, alternatives) |
imported>Russell Potter (date format -- reply) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Okie, but it still doesn't seem very intuitive to me, although I gotta say I can't think of a better way of saying it in a precise manner. It's wordy, but how about '''(born c. 1833, died sometime after 1903)''' or '''(born c. 1833, date of death uncertain, but 1903 or later)''' At least that way no one can possibly misinterpret what is being said -- and I think full information is more important here than saving a minute amount of space. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:28, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | ::Okie, but it still doesn't seem very intuitive to me, although I gotta say I can't think of a better way of saying it in a precise manner. It's wordy, but how about '''(born c. 1833, died sometime after 1903)''' or '''(born c. 1833, date of death uncertain, but 1903 or later)''' At least that way no one can possibly misinterpret what is being said -- and I think full information is more important here than saving a minute amount of space. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:28, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
:::Hayford, thanks, but I think it's OK for now -- this is, in fact, a style I have seen in quite a few published books, and which I used myself in my new book on this subject, at the suggestion of the copyeditor. I don't think "after 1903" is all that ambiguous; the alternatives may be more absolutely immune to misunerstanding but are as you say much wordier. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 12:46, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 12:46, 10 June 2007
Hi, Russell: Is "c. 1833-after" a standard form of, I imagine, saying "circa 1833 or later"? I've never seen it before, and I had to stop and study it for a while to figure out what I *think* it means. For all I know it's common academic (or mainstream, for that matter) usage. But I wonder if there's a more graceful way of stating this? Best, Hayford Peirce 11:51, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
- Hayford -- just a matter of spacing -- I've just corrected it to (c. 1833 - after 1903); the birthdate is best guess (ergo c. for circa); the "after 1903" means that he was still living in 1903, ergo his death date must be after that. Russell Potter 11:54, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
- Okie, but it still doesn't seem very intuitive to me, although I gotta say I can't think of a better way of saying it in a precise manner. It's wordy, but how about (born c. 1833, died sometime after 1903) or (born c. 1833, date of death uncertain, but 1903 or later) At least that way no one can possibly misinterpret what is being said -- and I think full information is more important here than saving a minute amount of space. Hayford Peirce 12:28, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
- Hayford, thanks, but I think it's OK for now -- this is, in fact, a style I have seen in quite a few published books, and which I used myself in my new book on this subject, at the suggestion of the copyeditor. I don't think "after 1903" is all that ambiguous; the alternatives may be more absolutely immune to misunerstanding but are as you say much wordier. Russell Potter 12:46, 10 June 2007 (CDT)