J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message<mailman.2.1377033174.2882.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, singhals > <singhals@erols.com> writes: >> >> >> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > [] >>>>> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to >>>>> refer to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest any of >>>>> >>>>> Apr-Jun 1891 >>>>> 1891, Apr-Jun >>>>> Q2 1891 >>>>> 1891Q2 > [] >> Aren't there enough things the newbie (and the oldie) need to remember >> about boundary changes and calendar changes and how Regnal dates and >> the Quaker dating system(s) differ from the Gregorian/Julian and why >> Uncle James' baptism is down as Jacobus ... without tossing in an >> unnecessary difference? Even if /this/ change seems like a good idea at >> the time. >> >> Cheryl >> >> > I wasn't sure whether you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. I'm only > suggesting we use something like Q2 rather than Jun, which should _help_ > not only newcomers but anyone; all I'm suggesting is that if we say Q2, > it is less _likely_ that, further down the line, it'll lose the > "quarter" information, whereas if we continue to say Jun, it can easily > become corrupted into meaning the month. > > Interesting that, as well as the third month which is the standard way > and the first which I have seen, someone in this thread (for what seems > like a very sensible reason) uses the middle month - so all three are in > use. I am fairly neutral on the merits of the idea that further clarity is required for "4th Quarter 1876", mostly because by the time civil reg begins in England, I have no one in England to be affected. My point was, there are enough disparities in manners-of-recording that have to be considered while reading a date that it seems downright malicious to deliberately elect to create yet another. Standardization works IF AND ONLY IF it can be enforced by something other than peer pressure. Some folks don't acknowledge the existence of peers. (g) Cheryl