killermike wrote: >> > This is something I have have often wondered about too. For example, if > you have a book that was written in 1600 but your copy is a 1976 > paperback, what do you put for the date?
That's part of the protocol you're using for citing sources, which is a question for you and your editor(s), if any. Some disciplines have particular conventions, which are often formalized in style guides. In MLA style, for example, works are sometimes cited using the actual printing date, with the first-publication date in square brackets: "1976 [1600]". That's because minute details of the text are sometimes important in literary and textual studies, and typographical errors, spelling changes, and the like can be introduced in subsequent printings. (Sometimes there are even bigger changes; James apparently rewrote the ending to _Daisy Miller_ at some point between editions, so there are two versions of the novel out there.) What it comes down to, though, is that there are no natural rules for how to cite anything. There are more-or-less arbitrary rules created by various publishing houses, professional organizations, journals, editors, and the like; there are guidelines and style guides; there are the whims of individuals. So no one can give you a universal rule for a specific sort of citation. It depends on who's going to be reading it, and what they'll accept. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
