TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-09 > 1031021668


From: "Laura M. Cooper" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Old Style date entry
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:54:28 -0500
References: <5.1.1.6.0.20020901235557.01a63f68@mail.attbi.com>
In-Reply-To: <KBEEJNHPFAMCGLNKDFEFEEALEOAA.rdamon@beltronicsinc.com>


Richard,

Thanks for your interesting reply.

Frankly, I would prefer that TMG not mess with my dates so that I could
enter them as they appear in the original documents, or how I want them to
appear. Other than OS dates, I find it particularly frustrating that dates
written, for example, 4. 10. 1677., are automatically converted. Though the
first number is usually the day, I work on the theory that there are
exceptions to every rule. My preference would be for TMG to convert only
those dates that have all the elements of the chosen format in whatever
order, and that all others - regular or irregular - must be entered manually.

Laura Cooper,
Arlington, Texas

At 11:26 AM 9/2/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Laura M. Cooper [mailto:]
> > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 1:27 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: [TMG] Old Style date entry
> >
> >
> > Is there a reason why when entering an Old Style date, say 18 Mar 1653os,
> > TMG converts the date to 18 Mar 1652/53 rather than the correct date, 18
> > Mar 1653/54? In the scheme of things, this is a minor issue since
> > OS dates
> > can be entered manually, but I was really hoping it would be corrected in
> > v5, or that the feature would be discontinued to prevent innocent
> > mistakes.
> >
> > Laura Cooper,
> > Arlington, Texas
> >
>
>I agree it is a bug (or at least a misfeature). Non-Gregorian date handling
>is one of the few weaknesses in TMG. TMG only handles 2 types of dates.
>Normal Gregorian and split year dates. (Try June 15, 1650 OS). Part of the
>issue is that there are really 3 calendars here.
>
>Original Julian, with the year running from March 25 to March 24.
>A revised Julian, with the year running from January 1 to December 31.
>Gregorian, with the year running from January 1 to December 31.
>
>(There are other variation of Julian start dates also but less common).
>A place might actually use different versions of the Julian at the same
>time. This is why they adopted the split year dating as 18 Mar 1653/54 was
>actually in 2 different years depending on the colander used. 18 Mar 1653 OS
>was probably on the 25 Mar - 24 Mar colander so 53/54 is probably correct.
>If it was on the Jan - Dec calendar it would not have been marked OS in the
>original, but may have in someone's work as a way to say Julian.
>
>In some modern histories dates before the shift of colander may adopt the
>double year dating to explain a birth July 810 followed by a death in Feb
>810 (giving the death as Feb 810/11). I would like TMG to have a way to
>indicate if a date is Julian or Gregorian (or unknown) without using double
>years (which is only really appropriate for 3 months of the year). Double
>Year dating would only need to be available for Julian dates (but not forced
>for all). While improving this it would be nice if they also looked into
>being able to express other calendars (like the Jewish or Muslim) and dates
>BC.
>
>Richard Damon
>--
> (Genealogy)
> (Home)
> (Work)


This thread: