Newbie looking for guidance on citing sources
EdStevens
have actually compiled quite a bit of info on both my and my wife's
family, but I'd like to bring more discipline to documenting and
citing sources. In the past I've been using FTM 2008 and for now it
is still my 'master' database, but I'm also experimenting with the
free/trial vesions of Legacy and Roots Master.
Now, to my specific question. As I access census records from
ancestry.com what is the preferred way to break down the source
information listed there? When I add a source, of Source Type:
Census, U.S. Federal (Database/Index)
it asks for the following:
Master Source:
compiler:
title:
Item type:
Owner
Website title
URL
So for instance, ancestry.com lists the following:
Source Citation: Year: 1860; Census Place: Liberty, St Francis,
Arkansas; Roll M653_49; Page: 489; Image: 489; Family History Library
Film: 803049.
Source Information:
Ancestry.com. 1860 United States Federal Census [database on-line].
Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009. Images reproduced
by FamilySearch. Original data: 1860 U.S. census, population schedule.
NARA microfilm publication M653, 1,438 rolls. Washington, D.C.:
National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.
How would you break that out and map it to the individual fields that
Roots Magic is prompting for?
Denis Beauregard
<queti...@yahoo.com> �crivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:
It should be the source of actual data.
- If you are using the indexed data and don't read the original
record, then the source is the ancestry.com database with a date
(because the record can be corrected later). More exactly, it would
be the index with a possible reference to the microfilm no. and image
so that you can retrieve later that image (which is why you record
the source).
- If you read the original record, which is an image of the record
as written by the censor and not a recent reading, then the source is
the census itself, with microfilm no. and image
As for what field contains what, it is quite common in genealogy that
there is no universal format and someone may suggest one format and
someone else, another. You may inquire near the place where you will
eventually send your data if you want a more specific format, i.e. if
you are in a genealogical society, ask if they have a database format
or if they have specifications for GEDCOM files. If you are a Mormon,
check the format in the LDS/FamilySearch databases.
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - g�n�alogiste �m�rite (FQSG)
Les Fran�ais d'Am�rique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur c�d�rom � 1775 - On CD-ROM to 1775
Tom Perrett
>As for what field contains what, it is quite common in genealogy that
>there is no universal format and someone may suggest one format and
>someone else, another.
"EVIDENCE! Citation and Analysis for the
Family Historian", Elizabeth Shown MILLS
is generally considered to be an authorative
publication for us.
The guidlines at pages 73-75 are useful
even though they are for the US Census
the principle is the same.
Cheers,
Tom [Tom Perrett] <to...@st.net.au>
EdStevens
francogene....@fr.invalid> wrote:
> Le Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:47:48 -0800 (PST), EdStevens
Thanks for the quick feedback. In addition to the problem of where to
map the various pieces of information about the source into a given
tool is the problem of developing a consistent and rational method for
*naming* the entries for sources and repositories. I've been an IT
professional for over 30 years (since before the term "IT") and am a
firm believer in what we refer to as 'naming standards'. I know going
in that naming source entries like "Janes birth certificate' and 'Dads
gravestone picture' is a short road to chaos. I've seen in a few
blogs where some people have tried to describe their methods, but they
tend to be rather vague and address only one or two types of sources
or repositories. I guess what I'm looking for is a pointer to some
publication (print or on-line) that lays out a fairly comprehensive
system. Not only the citation details themselves, but the method of
naming the source for filing within the software being used.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<queti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the quick feedback. In addition to the problem of where to
>map the various pieces of information about the source into a given
>tool is the problem of developing a consistent and rational method for
>*naming* the entries for sources and repositories. I've been an IT
>professional for over 30 years (since before the term "IT") and am a
>firm believer in what we refer to as 'naming standards'. I know going
>in that naming source entries like "Janes birth certificate' and 'Dads
>gravestone picture' is a short road to chaos. I've seen in a few
>blogs where some people have tried to describe their methods, but they
>tend to be rather vague and address only one or two types of sources
>or repositories. I guess what I'm looking for is a pointer to some
>publication (print or on-line) that lays out a fairly comprehensive
>system. Not only the citation details themselves, but the method of
>naming the source for filing within the software being used.
I'm a simple feller. There are two reasons to source..
1. So other researchers can check you out
2. So you don't have to keep going back to the same source because you
forgot you had already seen it, or conversely, so you can find it
again.
A source needs to tell two things..
1. Where you found/got/whatever the fact.
2. I forget the other reason.
If you learned the fact from a person, that person is your source; his
source is not your source, HOWSOMEVER, it's a good idea to record
that, too. You will probably need it later. When you personally see
the source you can eliminate the name of the person as your source.
My genealogy is mine. After reading sourcing standards my sourcing
standard is mine. I don't expect to have to take a test to pass to the
genealogical 5th grade or earn a genealogy diploma.
I apologize if that upsets some purists here.
Hugh
Ian Goddard
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:58:37 -0500, Denis Beauregard wrote:
>
>> As for what field contains what, it is quite common in genealogy that
>> there is no universal format and someone may suggest one format and
>> someone else, another.
>
> "EVIDENCE! Citation and Analysis for the
> Family Historian", Elizabeth Shown MILLS
> is generally considered to be an authorative
> publication for us.
AIUI This is an adaptation of a particular academic style guide. This
would be appropriate if one were publishing in a journal which required
this particular style. However different publishers have different
requirements; there is no universal rule for citations in general so
there is no universal base on which to build a genealogical style guide.
As with any other form of academic publication you should write your
citations according to the requirements of the intended publisher. If
you're not intending to publish then you're free to use whatever
approach you like as Hugh says.
In practice I have reservations about one rule which is sometimes
imposed and that is to include the town or city in which a book is
published but not the name of the publisher. I don't know off-hand
whether the Mills guide uses this approach. One of the local history
books covering my area was published in Driffield. Would this detail
help anyone locate a copy? Wouldn't the name of the publisher be more
useful?
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
Tom Perrett
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here
in Australia we do have such a thing
"The Australian Style
Manual"
http://www.australia.gov.au/publications/other-resources-for-locating-publicat
ions/style-manual
I would reckon other countries would have something equal.
singhals
Let's _not_ start the "I've more experience than you" to-do
again. You'll lose, because 30 years is nada here.
> firm believer in what we refer to as 'naming standards'. I know going
> in that naming source entries like "Janes birth certificate' and 'Dads
> gravestone picture' is a short road to chaos. I've seen in a few
> blogs where some people have tried to describe their methods, but they
> tend to be rather vague and address only one or two types of sources
> or repositories. I guess what I'm looking for is a pointer to some
> publication (print or on-line) that lays out a fairly comprehensive
> system. Not only the citation details themselves, but the method of
> naming the source for filing within the software being used.
That short road to chaos is a fairly interesting clue to
the reader about your research methodology, which can give
others with different methodologies the chance to lend a
hand if you need it.
I doubt there is an imposable standard.
However, check the MLA link, or the GPO, or Rootsweb's
tutorials for ideas. Mills' "Evidence! Explained" may help.
So long as YOU are internally consistent, it'll work.
Whether I like your system or Hugh likes your system or
anyone else likes any of our systems is immaterial. YOU
need to know where you found something and you need to
record that "where" in a manner YOU will recognize.
No point in recording "Early Records of ..." when you and
the rest of the world thinks of the document as
"Sage'n'Jones". No point in using the US Census Bureau's
suggestion "Thirteenth Census of the United States" if you
can't remember what year the 13th census was taken ... etc etc.
Cheryl
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>In practice I have reservations about one rule which is sometimes
>imposed and that is to include the town or city in which a book is
>published but not the name of the publisher. I don't know off-hand
>whether the Mills guide uses this approach. One of the local history
>books covering my area was published in Driffield. Would this detail
>help anyone locate a copy? Wouldn't the name of the publisher be more
>useful?
Yes, the name of the publisher is useful in helping to locate published
sources.
I have more problems with unpublished sources, and much depends on the way
source recording is implemented in the genealogy program one uses. I use
Legacy, and, in the case of e-mail, I've settled for this method:
In the Description field I put "E-mail from <name of sender>
In the Category field I put Letter
In the author field I put the name of the person who sent the e-mail.
In the Title field I put "Email from <name of sender> to <name of recipient>
In the "Publication Facts: field I put the name of the city or country the
sender lives in but usually not the year, since the correspondence may go over
several years)
In the "Detail information" field I put the date of the e-mail in the format
yyyy-mm-dd, so that they sort in date order.
But it took me some time to work out this method, so some of them I have
recorded in a different way, and try to bring tyhem into line with my standard
form when I check them again.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Jack
"EdStevens" <queti...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:757dcc11-fa91-42ec...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 2:58 pm, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-
francogene....@fr.invalid> wrote:
> Le Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:47:48 -0800 (PST), EdStevens
Have yuo seen this video?
http://www.legacyfamilytree.net/videos/previews/sources/sources_preview.html
I would recommed you to read this book "Evidence Explained"
http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=EVD&Click=1192
Legacy DeLuxe available from:
http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=1&Click=1192
EdStevens
> "EdStevens" <quetico_...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
> viestiss :757dcc11-fa91-42ec-8df4-0ccc761eb...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 2:58 pm, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-
>
> francogene....@fr.invalid> wrote:
> > Le Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:47:48 -0800 (PST), EdStevens
>
>
I hadn't but did. Pretty helpful. Legacy is one of 3 programs I'm
working with right now (the other 2 are FTM 2008 and Roots Magic). If
nothing else, that gave me the clue as to how to frame my basic
question, which I'm afraid was still a bit vague, based on most of the
responses so far. What I'm after right now is a rational method of
"organizaing my source master list." Which is really a separate issue
from how to actually cite sources.
> I would recommed you to read this book "Evidence Explained"http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=E...
Ian Goddard
AIUI Your original question listed the fields given by Roots Magic.
With your background I'm sure you'll realise that what they provide is a
general purpose set of fields. Hopefully they will have given some
thought as to how these fields will be used to map different source
citations. Probably the best place to direct questions such as this is
the publisher of Roots Magic. If indeed they have a view on this then
they can explain it. If they haven't then you need to draw up your own
rules.
Given your original question my own starting point would be something like:
Master Source: 1860 U.S. census
compiler: <Name of the authority responsible for conducting the census>
title: NARA microfilm publication M653
Item type: Microfile image reproduced online
Owner: <Good question - Ancestry, Familysearch or census authority>
Website title: Ancestry.com. 1860 United States Federal Census [database
on-line]
URL: <Whatever>
I'd be hoping, however, that there was a further level of detail where
you'd be able to list roll and image number. If not then these would
have to go into the title.
The real problem with this sort of thing, of course, is that this sort
of one-size-fits-all arrangement is really
one-size-fits-hardly-anything. A better solution would have been to
have an arrangement whereby you can draw up your own hierarchy of sources.
singhals
> On Dec 29, 2:09 pm, "Jack" <J...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>"EdStevens" <quetico_...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
>>viestiss :757dcc11-fa91-42ec-8df4-0ccc761eb...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>On Dec 27, 2:58 pm, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-
>>
>>francogene....@fr.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Le Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:47:48 -0800 (PST), EdStevens
>>
>>Have yuo seen this video?http://www.legacyfamilytree.net/videos/previews/sources/sources_previ...
>>
>
> I hadn't but did. Pretty helpful. Legacy is one of 3 programs I'm
> working with right now (the other 2 are FTM 2008 and Roots Magic). If
> nothing else, that gave me the clue as to how to frame my basic
> question, which I'm afraid was still a bit vague, based on most of the
> responses so far. What I'm after right now is a rational method of
> "organizaing my source master list." Which is really a separate issue
> from how to actually cite sources.
Well, ummm, seems to me you figure out what you want your
cited source to look like, then create your source list so
the program will spit out the footnotes the way they're
supposed to look.
F'instance, I used my paperback dictionary to look up the
definition of the word "mechanic".
I can put that under
REFERENCE - Dictionary -
or
mechanic - definition
or
definition: mechanic
or
American Heritage Dictionary
Alternatively, I consult the marriage record book in Poduck
Co, Unitas.
I can put that under
MARRIAGES - (surname of interest)
or
(surname of interest) - marriage
or
(date of marriage) - (surname of interest)
or
Unitas, Poduck Co. - Marriage Register #3, pg 34, line 18.
While # 1 thru 3 inclusive tells YOU something, it probably
won't tell Ian or Hugh or Peter anything useful. Only #4
will tell someone else anything potentially useful.
OTOH, my "master source list" is chrono and on paper --
things are on that list in the order in which I looked at
them. That serves to remind me of the thought process and
to remind me of WHY I looked "here" 5 times.
On the third hand, you can always use the date --
1742 - 02 - 29
1873 - 12 - 15
It sort of sounds as if you're trying to use your sources
list for something it wasn't intended to do. Nothing wrong
with that, I do it all the time, but ... it does produce
output that is not anywhere close to a "standard" unless you
spend inordinate amounts of time cleaning it up in the output.
Cheryl
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>Well, ummm, seems to me you figure out what you want your
>cited source to look like, then create your source list so
>the program will spit out the footnotes the way they're
>supposed to look.
>
>F'instance, I used my paperback dictionary to look up the
>definition of the word "mechanic".
Why don't you use Merriam-Webster online? Why do you need a source for
"mechanic"?
>Alternatively, I consult the marriage record book in Poduck
>Co, Unitas.
>
>I can put that under
>MARRIAGES - (surname of interest)
>or
>(surname of interest) - marriage
>or
>(date of marriage) - (surname of interest)
>or
>Unitas, Poduck Co. - Marriage Register #3, pg 34, line 18.
I'm a Charter Member of KISS. My source would be "Poduck Co., Unitas
Marriage Record Book #3 p18"
>It sort of sounds as if you're trying to use your sources
>list for something it wasn't intended to do. Nothing wrong
>with that, I do it all the time, but ... it does produce
>output that is not anywhere close to a "standard" unless you
>spend inordinate amounts of time cleaning it up in the output.
>
>Cheryl
I spend a lot of time on "locations" and "sources" looking for
consistency, i. e., county always Co., states always the two letter
abbreviation and always caps, never listing book and page number
before the source (find the source, find the book, find the page),
almost always 3 letter abbreviations for countries. Picking nits can
be fun.
Hugh
Bob Melson
opined:
<snip>
> Picking nits can be fun.
>
> Hugh
Speculating Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
singhals
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:46:17 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, ummm, seems to me you figure out what you want your
>>cited source to look like, then create your source list so
>>the program will spit out the footnotes the way they're
>>supposed to look.
>>
>>F'instance, I used my paperback dictionary to look up the
>>definition of the word "mechanic".
>
>
> Why don't you use Merriam-Webster online? Why do you need a source for
> "mechanic"?
>
Because when I say that in the 1870s it meant someone who
worked with his hands, not what we think of today, I need to
back it up with a reference. And anyway, it was an example,
fer cryin' out loud. Jeeezzzz
>
>>Alternatively, I consult the marriage record book in Poduck
>>Co, Unitas.
>>
>>I can put that under
>>MARRIAGES - (surname of interest)
>>or
>>(surname of interest) - marriage
>>or
>>(date of marriage) - (surname of interest)
>>or
>>Unitas, Poduck Co. - Marriage Register #3, pg 34, line 18.
>
>
> I'm a Charter Member of KISS. My source would be "Poduck Co., Unitas
> Marriage Record Book #3 p18"
>
Just for the purposes of continuing the discussion, I'd
think Poduck Co. could be in several different states (Lord
knows Essex Co. and Washington Co. are!), which might be
tricky if you list the county first?
>
>>It sort of sounds as if you're trying to use your sources
>>list for something it wasn't intended to do. Nothing wrong
>>with that, I do it all the time, but ... it does produce
>>output that is not anywhere close to a "standard" unless you
>>spend inordinate amounts of time cleaning it up in the output.
>>
>>Cheryl
>
>
> I spend a lot of time on "locations" and "sources" looking for
> consistency, i. e., county always Co., states always the two letter
> abbreviation and always caps, never listing book and page number
> before the source (find the source, find the book, find the page),
> almost always 3 letter abbreviations for countries. Picking nits can
> be fun.
While I too subscribe to KISS, I'm a fan of "sufficient unto
the day" as well. (G) I "clean up" stuff like that when I'm
in dormant mode, letting something recede into my
subconscious to see if can hook up with something else down
there and produce an idea ...
Your nits are always sooooo cute, too ...
Happy New Year!
Cheryl
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>On Thursday 31 December 2009 09:42, J. Hugh Sullivan (Ea...@bellsouth.net)
>opined:
><snip>
>
>> Picking nits can be fun.
>Unless you really ARE lousy and have a major infestation.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>Speculating Ol' Bob
I didn't mean picking my own nits.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:46:17 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, ummm, seems to me you figure out what you want your
>>>cited source to look like, then create your source list so
>>>the program will spit out the footnotes the way they're
>>>supposed to look.
>>>
>>>F'instance, I used my paperback dictionary to look up the
>>>definition of the word "mechanic".
>>
>>
>> Why don't you use Merriam-Webster online? Why do you need a source for
>> "mechanic"?
>>
>
>Because when I say that in the 1870s it meant someone who
>worked with his hands, not what we think of today, I need to
>back it up with a reference. And anyway, it was an example,
>fer cryin' out loud. Jeeezzzz
A hit man is sometimes known as a "mechanic".
>
>
>>
>>>Alternatively, I consult the marriage record book in Poduck
>>>Co, Unitas.
>>>
>>>I can put that under
>>>MARRIAGES - (surname of interest)
>>>or
>>>(surname of interest) - marriage
>>>or
>>>(date of marriage) - (surname of interest)
>>>or
>>>Unitas, Poduck Co. - Marriage Register #3, pg 34, line 18.
>>
>>
>> I'm a Charter Member of KISS. My source would be "Poduck Co., Unitas
>> Marriage Record Book #3 p18"
>>
>
>Just for the purposes of continuing the discussion, I'd
>think Poduck Co. could be in several different states (Lord
>knows Essex Co. and Washington Co. are!), which might be
>tricky if you list the county first?
I thought Unitas was your example of the state. Mea lotsa culpa.
>> I spend a lot of time on "locations" and "sources" looking for
>> consistency, i. e., county always Co., states always the two letter
>> abbreviation and always caps, never listing book and page number
>> before the source (find the source, find the book, find the page),
>> almost always 3 letter abbreviations for countries. Picking nits can
>> be fun.
>
>While I too subscribe to KISS, I'm a fan of "sufficient unto
>the day" as well. (G) I "clean up" stuff like that when I'm
>in dormant mode, letting something recede into my
>subconscious to see if can hook up with something else down
>there and produce an idea ...
>
>Your nits are always sooooo cute, too ...
>
>Happy New Year!
>
>Cheryl
And may the new Year treat you kindly also, Gal from Cajun Country.
Hugh
singhals
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:16:55 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:46:17 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, ummm, seems to me you figure out what you want your
>>>>cited source to look like, then create your source list so
>>>>the program will spit out the footnotes the way they're
>>>>supposed to look.
>>>>
>>>>F'instance, I used my paperback dictionary to look up the
>>>>definition of the word "mechanic".
>>>
>>>
>>>Why don't you use Merriam-Webster online? Why do you need a source for
>>>"mechanic"?
>>>
>>
>>Because when I say that in the 1870s it meant someone who
>>worked with his hands, not what we think of today, I need to
>>back it up with a reference. And anyway, it was an example,
>>fer cryin' out loud. Jeeezzzz
>
>
> A hit man is sometimes known as a "mechanic".
>
;) you being the older and all, I guess you'd know ...
>>
>>>>Alternatively, I consult the marriage record book in Poduck
>>>>Co, Unitas.
>>>>
>>>>I can put that under
>>>>MARRIAGES - (surname of interest)
>>>>or
>>>>(surname of interest) - marriage
>>>>or
>>>>(date of marriage) - (surname of interest)
>>>>or
>>>>Unitas, Poduck Co. - Marriage Register #3, pg 34, line 18.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm a Charter Member of KISS. My source would be "Poduck Co., Unitas
>>>Marriage Record Book #3 p18"
>>>
>>
>>Just for the purposes of continuing the discussion, I'd
>>think Poduck Co. could be in several different states (Lord
>>knows Essex Co. and Washington Co. are!), which might be
>>tricky if you list the county first?
>
>
> I thought Unitas was your example of the state. Mea lotsa culpa.
>
Yeah, it was ... but it's easier to pick the wrong Essex Co.
than to pick the wrong state...or at least, I think it is.
>
>>>I spend a lot of time on "locations" and "sources" looking for
>>>consistency, i. e., county always Co., states always the two letter
>>>abbreviation and always caps, never listing book and page number
>>>before the source (find the source, find the book, find the page),
>>>almost always 3 letter abbreviations for countries. Picking nits can
>>>be fun.
>>
>>While I too subscribe to KISS, I'm a fan of "sufficient unto
>>the day" as well. (G) I "clean up" stuff like that when I'm
>>in dormant mode, letting something recede into my
>>subconscious to see if can hook up with something else down
>>there and produce an idea ...
>>
>>Your nits are always sooooo cute, too ...
>>
>>Happy New Year!
>>
>>Cheryl
>
>
> And may the new Year treat you kindly also, Gal from Cajun Country.
Fais-do-do got sleeted out where I am. Lessee, only 'nother
week before the Krewes start rolling -- things are looking up.
Cheryl
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:16:55 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>> wrote:
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:46:17 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>Because when I say that in the 1870s it meant someone who
>>>worked with his hands, not what we think of today, I need to
>>>back it up with a reference. And anyway, it was an example,
>>>fer cryin' out loud. Jeeezzzz
>> A hit man is sometimes known as a "mechanic".
>;) you being the older and all, I guess you'd know ...
I would have preferred "more experienced". You hit me right in the
crawfish etouffee
>>>Happy New Year!
>>>
>>>Cheryl
>> And may the new Year treat you kindly also, Gal from Cajun Country.
>
>Fais-do-do got sleeted out where I am. Lessee, only 'nother
>week before the Krewes start rolling -- things are looking up.
>
>Cheryl
One son is a partner in a hotel management firm and they manage the
hotel on the corner of Canal and Bourbon. C'est magnifique. Wish I was
there for the festivities.
When I was in the Navy I was stationed on Bourbon Street for a few
months.
Hugh
Paul Blair
>
> Fais-do-do got sleeted out where I am. Lessee, only 'nother week before
> the Krewes start rolling -- things are looking up.
>
> Cheryl
>
On a different tack - I went and looked up 'fais-do-do'. Not a phrase
used here in Australia.
Why did I look? Well, a thousand years ago there was a hit parade song
that included the words "gotta go to the faydohdoh" (or so it sounded to
me). Never understood it!
But now I do - thanks.
Paul
Canberra