Thanks Margaret! I really appreciate the knowledge you share so generously.
Joanne: regarding the date, I believe that it's best to add a qualifier
("circa", "about", "probably"-- or similar) to the date so that it's
readily apparent that it's not a recorded fact. I would also add a note
mentioning the absence of the date on the record and the reason for
selecting the date you used.
hope that helps,
:)
Linda
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 7:51:01 AM UTC-7, Mara wrote:
>
> Hi Bill, I would say no, not the same as Jose's for the obvious reason of
> it being recorded after the one with the missing date. Were Jose's the
> first record followed by the one above it without date, then you would say
> the 30th.
>
> Bad habits were hard to break. Heavy fines were handed out. Some priests
> did margin corrections others didn't.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 16, 2017, at 9:49 AM, bsei...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you Margaret. It is good to know that if a date is not specified it
> was likely recorded the same day as the previous record. That hadn't
> occurred to me.
>
> In this case, wouldn't it be 30 Jan since that is the date of Jose's
> baptism recorded on the same page? (end of line 7: "...aos trin-ta do
> ditto mes e anno")
>
> Bill
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Azores Genealogy" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to azores+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/azores.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Azores Genealogy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to azores+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/azores.
