New Post
Search
Help[Facts] Re: Junior vs. II
in reply to a message by Mike C
Arthur has it figured right, and Nan, IMHO, is 98% right. The only point she makes that I'd question is that when an elder kicks off, a "III" could become EITHER a "Jr" or a "II".
To me, "Jr" implies there was never anyone of the same name extant concurrently with the "III" except the father. The "II" leaves open the possibility there were predecessors to the father.
I know -- debatable, nitpicky point, from a former "II" who never used it. Actually, Major, Magnus, and Minor (like same-named boys in a Brit public school) would be classier. But why bother?
To me, "Jr" implies there was never anyone of the same name extant concurrently with the "III" except the father. The "II" leaves open the possibility there were predecessors to the father.
I know -- debatable, nitpicky point, from a former "II" who never used it. Actually, Major, Magnus, and Minor (like same-named boys in a Brit public school) would be classier. But why bother?
1
Replies
Errata in the last paragraphI
My bad. Distinguishing three pupils of the same name would be Maximus, Magnus, and Minimus. Major and Minor (no Magnus) would be used to distinguish two.
But again, why bother?
My bad. Distinguishing three pupils of the same name would be Maximus, Magnus, and Minimus. Major and Minor (no Magnus) would be used to distinguish two.
But again, why bother?
1