tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post1606701500141375689..comments2024-02-26T22:20:35.300-05:00Comments on Filiopietism Prism: "Was" or "Is" . . . What Tense Makes Most Sense For One's Ancestors? (October 22, 2015)Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139639019457759712noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-87800642993164830372015-12-09T17:25:22.019-05:002015-12-09T17:25:22.019-05:00Colleen: Please excuse the long delay in replying...Colleen: Please excuse the long delay in replying, but I somehow missed your comment (which is much appreciated). I think either form can be appropriate depending on the context and intent of the writing. If the writing is describing or concerned with the actual action of burying Joe Smith (and the burial has already been accomplished), then I think Joe Smith WAS buried is appropriate -- especially, for example, if it is followed by the date of the burial, or by the names of the pallbearers, or the minister who gave the prayer, etc. When referring in the writing to the location of the cemetery or other site of Joe's burial -- and the location/cemetery still exists as his burial location -- then I would use IS because (as you stated) Joe is still located at the site where he was buried some time earlier. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139639019457759712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-6647814046049123852015-10-23T21:24:57.293-04:002015-10-23T21:24:57.293-04:00I don't think I'm consistent, though as is...I don't think I'm consistent, though as is noted above, for me, it probably depends on the context of what I'm writing. However, after reading your post and the comments, I will be thinking about this more closely as I write future blog posts - thanks!Elizabeth Handlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529452862369140506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-72787994543683193262015-10-23T19:55:05.984-04:002015-10-23T19:55:05.984-04:00Thank you for this post. I have struggled with th...Thank you for this post. I have struggled with this for a long time. I use past tense, but would prefer present tense for the reasons you stated. Diane Gould Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15362418860289987479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-77365989278077066892015-10-23T17:36:44.658-04:002015-10-23T17:36:44.658-04:00John, when I saw your topic listed with Jana's...John, when I saw your topic listed with Jana's Fab Finds I just had to come over & read! I should have realized that others struggled with this. I have decided to use the present tense because, as you said, they ARE my ancestors, living or dead. <br /><br />I also wonder about this... Joe Smith WAS buried in ABC cemetery. OR Joe Smith IS buried in ABC cemetery. I know he was placed there in the past but I assume he is still there. What tense do you use?Colleen G. Brown Pasqualehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16402783115333431440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-24028698795404649702015-10-23T16:25:52.052-04:002015-10-23T16:25:52.052-04:00Thank you for commenting . . . much appreciated.Thank you for commenting . . . much appreciated.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139639019457759712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-40139328934516419662015-10-23T16:25:17.054-04:002015-10-23T16:25:17.054-04:00Hi Nancy.
You raise some very good points and exa...Hi Nancy.<br /><br />You raise some very good points and examples. Personally, I think your decision to use the tense that best fits the context and structure of your writing is the way to go -- especially if the context refers to something the ancestor did, owned, etc. I have decided I like the present tense whenever I will be referring to my ancestors descriptively by relationship to me. The relationship, once established, is static and immutable and cannot change over time or after the ancestor's death. Once an ancestor is established as such and the level or degree of relationship is set, then he or she "IS" that relationship in the present tense to us who are living (in my humble opinion). <br /><br />With respect to your examples, I think the tense can be fluid with the context since your examples do not give the "title" of the individual ancestor's relationship to you; instead your examples talk to actions done by the individuals -- which were always in the past -- and so I think you can pick the tense that goes best with the context and structure of your writing. Your census example is a good illustration. Assuming you are citing to the 1920 census for facts about an individual (Tressa From an Doyle) as they existed in 1920, then you can easily say that the individual "appeared" in the 1920 census, which at this point was completed 95 years in the past. But, since you discovered the facts in the census many years after they were recorded, you could also say the individual "appears" in that historical document. I think either choice can be correct. If, however, one were to then follow up the statement about the individual being in the 1920 census with a statement about the relationship of the individual to you as an ancestor, then my preference (as explained in my post) would be to say something like, "Tressa Froman Doyle 'IS' my great grandmother."<br /><br />Thank you for your insightful comment and your helpful examples. The examples helped clarify in my mind how grammatical tense decisions should be made in genealogy when discussing ancestors (at least IMHO). ;-) Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139639019457759712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-92146091047158348752015-10-23T15:58:13.123-04:002015-10-23T15:58:13.123-04:00I think all of us involved in genealogy have proba...I think all of us involved in genealogy have probably stumbled across this conundrum eventually. I decided I just had to write my observation and decision down. Now the hard part is to adapt to consistent use of the present tense (with which I am now more comfortable). I appreciate your commenting. Thank you!Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139639019457759712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-61110514902271775272015-10-23T15:54:18.284-04:002015-10-23T15:54:18.284-04:00Thank you Jana! As I have sincerely stated before...Thank you Jana! As I have sincerely stated before, it is always an honor to be mentioned in your Fab Finds.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139639019457759712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-11257541161066918812015-10-23T14:24:04.359-04:002015-10-23T14:24:04.359-04:00John,
I want to let you know that your blog post ...John,<br /><br />I want to let you know that your blog post is listed in today's Fab Finds post at http://janasgenealogyandfamilyhistory.blogspot.com/2015/10/follow-friday-fab-finds-for-october-23.html<br /><br />Have a wonderful weekend!Jana Iverson Lasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07687969613629975601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-3202269977958849732015-10-23T11:08:01.631-04:002015-10-23T11:08:01.631-04:00I have struggled with is/are for my ancestors. I ...I have struggled with is/are for my ancestors. I appreciate your comments. Thanks for writing about this. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07105677800412372857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-16840925734458320132015-10-22T22:52:18.021-04:002015-10-22T22:52:18.021-04:00Wonderful post John! I've struggled with this ...Wonderful post John! I've struggled with this very thing. Is or was?Jana Iverson Lasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07687969613629975601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5448983254191618156.post-15898555281468321812015-10-22T22:13:38.338-04:002015-10-22T22:13:38.338-04:00I think I generally go with the present tense when...I think I generally go with the present tense when identifying a relationship with a deceased ancestor. I believe my ancestors' bodies are dead but that their spirits are alive but in a different sphere/environment than one in which I can physically see and communicate with them. (But there may be times when I've written about them in the past tense simply because I haven't been able to decide which tense fits best in the context of what I'm writing.) <br /><br />For me the bigger challenge comes when I have to explain that deceased ancestor's place in a census report or a will. For example, Tressa Froman Doyle appeared (or appears) in the 1920 census. Obviously her name still appears in the census record but sometimes the present tense doesn't fit context in which I'm writing. Likewise, Dixon's will recorded, or Dixon recorded in his will, or Dixon's will records.... Is there a correct and incorrect way in these circumstances, or do I just manipulate my writing so it all fits together? I wonder....<br /><br />I'll be interested to see if others comment and what they have to say.Nancyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12136584654825212359noreply@blogger.com