I think the explanation is probably fairly simple -- and logical. In conversation, we rarely need to mention the year. In the absence of the year, the month-day sequence is perfectly logical. It remains logical if, when we add the year, we add it at the beginning.
However, again in conversation, the year is usually added as an afterthought or as clarification. Where that is the reason, there is no need to put the year first. Indeed, it would come across as linguistically clumsy. Not only that, it would deny us the opportunity to emphasize the significant part of the date. Let's say I'm reminiscing about a particular July 4th celebration. I want to put my listener properly in the picture. Do I say the year first or do I start off with the reference to July 4? (For example, do I say either "I well remember July 4th, 1995" or "I well remember the fourth of July, 1995," or do I say "I well remember 1995, July 4?") Where the conversational form is written, the name rather than the number of the month is still used. ISO 8601 quite specifically excludes such forms from consideration and limits itself to the all-numeric expression of dates and times, which is the only situation where ambiguity needs to be resolved. I am happy to adhere strictly to ISO 8601 for all-numeric date references and strongly encourage others to do so. However, for conversational and narrative references (where the name of the month is used), I'm equally happy to follow the same linguistic styles and traditions I use for conversation and narrative prose generally. This seems to me to be another of those instances where zealotry in pursuit of a standard at all costs will do our cause more harm than good. Finally, two things: 1. Although ISO 8601 is consistent with the spirit of SI, it has nothing to do with SI. 2. There is no such thing as "Impure ISO 8601." (See subject.) Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of Terry Simpson >Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:38 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:26838] RE: Fw: [ISO8601] Re: Pure ISO 8601 or varied for >popular formats > > >Han Maenen wrote: >"the US somehow, "came up with", the month-day-year order" > >Actually, I suspect it is like the debate about gallons. There was nobody >imposing or enforcing standards from above. You can see old examples of the >mmm d, yyyy format in the UK. > >Here is an 1803 example from the archive of the Times (an eminent British >newspaper). >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,682,00.html > > >-- >Terry Simpson >Human Factors Consultant >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.connected-systems.com >Phone: +44 7850 511794 > >
