Transcriptions

[majm]

Attaching a snip of the snip    When I have been transcribing, I have always worked as part of a team, so sometimes I am checking someone else's work, and  other times someone else is checking my work.  Usually several checks actually.  Sometimes I have been a team leader, and sometimes I have worked under a team leader. 

We have always been encouraged to transcribe bearing in mind the context, so IF transcribing something to do with a birth and a relationship to the head of the household, if given the choice of ADAPTED or ADOPTED ... I am sure to read it as adopted.   Perhaps transcribing principles are slightly different from U.K. rules ... I am in NSW Australia, and have been transcribing 19th century long hand since err ... early 1970s.   

I agree though that it is best for each researcher to seek out the original document rather than rely on any transcription, provided of course they are familiar with the context, and the longhand script and the nuances of the written language used. 


JM

[carol8353]

Am I missing something as I still don't see the original image,just the transcription?

Adoption didn't start legally until 1927,so it would have been a strange word to use back then.

[groom]

Am I missing something as I still don't see the original image,just the transcription?

Adoption didn't start legally until 1927,so it would have been a strange word to use back then.

I was about to say the same Carol.

Looking at transcription rules for a site such as FreeCen it says

“The general rule will be that data will be transcribed 'as is'. There will be some (few) variations to this, to be described later, in detail. “

[Finley 1]

Yes ---- I comprehend the rules    ----

and I am NOT a rule breaker  -

But where is COMMONSENSE

so adopted was not a word commonly used in 1927  -- IT IS today -

this is why I could never be a transcriber - I would have to read and transcribe what I KNOW it says... in 'XINS' head.. which sometimes is (sssshhhhhh dont tell anyone) Incorrect.

like the bit I put on here the other day regarding me reading a Baptism.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=795764.msg6524762#msg6524762

I just get so fed up of silly errors..

YES abide by the rules, of course -- but can they not double check a place name or look it up..

Anyway too busy catching the Rays to follow the dead rellies for 24hrs...   might visit a cemetary or two..

see if they put the correct name on the gravestone..   ha ha..

xin

[Finley 1]

here are the bits? 

see what you think..

[majm]

   And, of course, regardless of when formal adoptions commenced, there were children who were informally adopted right across the 19th Century. 

  In my experience, across NSW throughout the 19th century, children were informally adopted within their extended family, while children who were raised within a family who were not related to the child, ie a formal relationship established via the Colonial office's Boarding Out Officer, were noted as fostered. 

  I would add, that in my experience, ''Adopted" is a word that was frequently used in NSW official records, and as many of those who raised those official records were migrants from the U.K. it may well be they were basing their use of English words on their own understanding of the words used in their life in England.

JM

[majm]

I read it as Adopted.

JM

[Guy Etchells]

I read it as Adopted.

JM

Yes very clear to me also.
Cheers
Guy

[BillyF]

yes, my first glance- read adopted.