> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:01 PM
> > You speak as if date or number formats had nothing to do
> with language. I
> > very
> > much disagree. If I have message that says: "The date of
> the last version
> > of
> > this document was 2003年3月20日", nobody in their right mind would say
> > that that is
> > correct English.
>
> I never said they would. The correct analysis of that content
> is that it has two runs that are in different languages. (So,
> AFICT your example does not prove anything.)
Actually, it can be considered as a single language, Japanese, if you accept romaji, which seem to be increasingly difficult to deny. However, I think this is irrelevant, as I fail to see that "20Mar03" (as I write 'em) or "3/20/03" (more common) qualify as "correct English", either. The only correct English way I know to write dates is "March 20, 2003", which I very rarely see. People from lots of different countries would recognize "3/20/03". Therefore we have multiple ways to write dates for most languages, and multiple languages for most ways to write dates. I think Peter Constable is on the right track here.
/|/|ike
