[APG Public List] Years in citations

Rondina Muncy rondina.muncy at gmail.com
Wed Nov 4 20:02:04 MST 2009


The best example I found right off the bat was the First Reference Note at
the top of p. 527 (10.33) which demonstrates the use of both pieces of
information to create a more exact citation. Now I have the reasoning behind
it. This does get confusing when I don't know if something is filed by year.
For instance, the birth certificate issued by the county in Texas may be in
a book that records births from several years (no parentheses). The same
birth certificate issued by the state is recorded by year (use parentheses).
What is the best method of determining whether something has been filed by
year, other than the number assigned to it? There probably isn't a method,
but perhaps you have some questions you pose to make a determination. I'm
sure this is second nature to you, but can lay out what you ask yourself
about the document in order to determine which category it falls in if it is
not obvious?

Thank you.

Rondina P. Muncy
Ancestral Analysis
2960 Trail Lake Drive
Grapevine, Texas 76051
rondina.muncy at gmail.com

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:07 PM, <eshown at comcast.net> wrote:

>   Rondina wrote:
> >I have forgotten the reasoning as to why we sometimes place the year in
> parentheses and sometimes use a comma. My example is on pp. 524-525 of
> _Evidence Explained_. In 10.32, first reference note, "inventory of the
> estate of William Frame, 1813" compared to 10.32, second example of the
> first reference note, "probate case files, no. 26469, Landry Charleville
> (1900)." Any help pushing me past this senior moment would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Rondina, you raise a good point—one that I apparently did not explain in
> EE.  (With 885 pages at my disposal, one would think I’d have covered it
> all. J)
> The two dates are used in different context. As a general rule without
> court cases, when a case number is cited and the cases are located or
> identified by year, then the year of the case is usually placed in
> parentheses. If one is citing an individual document from the case (or
> anything else), then the document’s date is not typically placed in
> parentheses.
> That’s one of the “visual clues” that alert readers as to the nature of
> what we’re citing and one of the ways that prevent readers from searching
> for records in the wrong time period. As you’ll note from the Charleville
> example, the case is dated 1900 (because it was opened in 1900 and it is
> filed amid 1900 cases), but the specific document of interest was a late
> 1901 document.  In *many* court cases the disparity between the date of
> the document and the date of the case in which it is filed is far greater. A
> 1900 case might introduce a document from, say, 1869. Or the case might be
> carried forward for years to come and we might be citing a 1920 document in
> a 1900 case.
> Punctuation is one of those “nitpicking” things most people groan over.
> Usually, though, there’s a reason why certain punctuation is used—and the
> reason is usually something to help us. (Even so, let me hasten to add that
> content is far more important than punctuation. Punctuation is just a set of
> little aids that help to clarify the content.)
> Elizabeth
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
> _______________________________________________
> APG Public Mailing List
> http://apgen.org/publications/publiclist/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: ../attachments/20091104/db64ceac/attachment.htm

More information about the APGPublicList mailing list