Negative Nancies and other related musings

[Victor Steinbok]

Thanks for the clarification.

That was not the "joke" I was referring to. The response predates the
original letter--not just the date of publication, but the supposed date
of /writing/. I wasn't clear and should have left the 1737,8 alone.

The split year is in the publication itself, so it can hardly be
attributable to the authors.

     VS-)

On 3/22/2010 8:56 AM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
> At 3/21/2010 05:15 PM, Victor Steinbok wrote:
>
>> Headline: Annapolis, February 20, 1737,8; Article Type: News/Opinion
>> Paper: American Weekly Mercury, published as The American Weekly
>> Mercury; Date: From Tuesday February 28, to Tuesday March 7, 1738;
>> Issue: 949; Page: Supplement [2/1]; Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
>>
>>> To conclude if any Gentleman concern'd, is dissatisfied with this
>>> Account of the Affair, and thinks fit in a publick Manner to call upon
>>> me to make it good, I will immediately unmask and be at his service.
>>> Till then it is presumed the Gentlemen of /Philadelphia/ will know
>>> better how to employ their Ships than to send them to /Maryland/ upon
>>> the Credit of this /chymerical Scheme/.
>>>      /John Doe/
>>>
>> A month later, this elicits a response. Note the apparent jokes on the
>> dates as well--as The Weekly American listed the dates as "1737,8",
>> apparently in reference to the continuity of the volume.
>>
> The dual year is because Britain, and its colonies, were still using
> the Julian calendar, and the new year did not begin until March
> 25.  The dual date removed any ambiguity, at a time when other
> countries had moved to the Gregorian calendar.  There is no joke on
> the date, or reference to continuity of the volume.
>
> Joel
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org