Date:  Mon, 27 Feb 1995 08:00:37 -0700

From:  Bruce Gelder <bgelder[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]CAMEL.SIM.ES.COM>

Subject: Re: "little" and "jr"



Jerry Miller wrote:



>  The "Jr." problem could be solved in many cases by never using "Sr." to

>designate the father in the twosome. I mean there would be "Joe Smith" and "Joe

>Smith Jr." and that should suffice, especially since no one is actually named

>Joe Smith Sr. on their birth certificate. It is merely a convenient way to make

>sure someone understands that you are referring to the elder rather than the

>younger Joe Smith, which is fine in conversation but totally unnecessary, in my

>view, in written copy. Agree? Disagree?



This would be fine if the reader could be assured that the convention was

being used consistently. In the absence of this assurance, however, I don't

think copy editors are doing any favors by allowing the designator to be

omitted. I say leave it on--the added clarity is well worth the tiny extra

effort.



>  It seems to me the Jr. has to remain in effect even after the Sr. dies, at

>least in sports--and probably politics, show business (i.e., Sammy Davis Jr.,

>Will Rogers Jr.), etc., for the people who don't read the obituary columns. I

>suppose it would be less important for us common folks, at least in

>conversation (but it might be in obits?)



Where I work there used to be an Edward Cheadle, Sr., and an Edward Cheadle,

Jr. Once EC, Sr., retired, the "Jr." was dropped for the younger EC in all

company-wide references to him (spoken and written), even in his computer

log-on name (which had formerly included "jr").



For whatever that's worth.



Bruce Gelder

bgelder[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]camel.sim.es.com