mozartpc27 wrote:phatj wrote:TenuredVulture wrote:I always figured the logic of units--days, months, years was the reason for doing it the European way. Like hours, minutes, seconds.
Of course, days-months-years is opposite order from hours-minutes-seconds. Most logical is CCYY-MM-DD.
It's more grammatical to do it the European way. Compare this:
Today is the twenty-fifth day of June.
To this:
Today is June twenty-fifth.
In the first example, we have a predicate nominative (day), modified by the ordinal adjective twenty-fifth. "of June" gives us more information about the day in a proper use of the genitive.
In the second example, only "June" is a noun, so it is the predicative nominative. That means we have a false equivalency: "Today" is "June" - but today can't be a month, as an "inch" can't be a "yard." Twenty-fifth should be an adjective, here modifying "June," but the basic premise of the sentence - today is June - is illogical. One might contend that "June 25th" should be taken as a "compound noun" of sorts, but English doesn't really do that; it's a lazy construction.
There's my best defense of the European dating system. Decide whether or not even I buy it.
That's a lot of words for a half-assed defense.
I'm not defending either the American or European construction except insofar as the former tends towards month-day when referring to a date without a year. But when the year is included, the American construction is nonsense; the middle division comes first, then the smallest, then the largest? Makes no sense. The European presents the time divisions in a progression, but it's backwards.
My contention is that if you write dates numerically, they should be written in such a way that if you have to sort a list, they'll sort into date order. This requires the year (preceded by the century) to come first, then the month, then the year. With leading zeros where applicable. If you're speaking, or writing dates spelled out instead of numerically, then this doesn't matter.
(Can you tell I'm in IT?)
