Because, unlike German, English has no arbitrary rules regarding word order.
However, you should try rereading my message. I did say that, in conversation, the year is most likely either an afterthought or a clarification. In the absence of the year, month followed by day is more logical than day followed by month (in that it follows the same convention as numerals within a number). The fact is, though, that July 4 and 4 July are both unambiguous, so frankly, my dear Michael, I don't give a damn. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of Michael-O >Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 16:09 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:26842] Re: Pure ISO 8601 or varied for popular formats > > >BUT why do only Americans say Month Day and the the stupid comma before the >year? > >almost all other nations says day month year. > >I don't say in german: Juli 4. >I say: 4. Juli >long version > >4. Juli 2004 wird kommen > >and not 4. Juli, 2004 >who invented that stupidity w/ the comma? > >bye > >Bill Potts wrote: >> 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 >
