love pearson [5 August 2014]
There is no proof Jonathan Powers married Love Pearson. The information you gave was Jona. Jonathan in all my research has not been called Jona. Please explain to me how to remove wrong information until it is a proven fact. Thank you--Pat rayburn 01:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Jona." is what the book says (see here). It is clearly an abbreviation and any familiarity with colonial documents is enough to know that it means Jonathan. Colonial documents were handwritten and they often contracted words, not to mention used phonetic spelling because there was no dictionary until 1830. Here is an image of the original marriage intentions: here, top line, left side. Jona is often typeset as either "Jona." or "Jon'a" on systems where it is difficult to use a superscript. Here, fifth line, left side, is a duplicate copy of the same record, made by the town clerk for safe keeping, where he spelled out Jonathan, showing that is what was meant.
- I am getting a little tired of looking up all these records for you when you have yet to produce primary evidence of any kind to support your argument. The conclusion on these pages represents where the evidence takes us, not some pre-conceived theory. There are rules of genealogical proof, and based on the volume and quality of sources I have provided, anything less than primary evidence is meaningless. You can find people that say anything. That means nothing. What means something is to find evidence based on documents written at the time people were alive by people that knew them, such as the town records whose images I have provided links to. --Jrich 03:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
|
