Talk:Rufus C. Somerby: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce ((c. 1833-after) |
imported>Russell Potter No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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, [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 11:51, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | 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, [[User:Hayford Peirce|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. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 11:54, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 10:54, 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)