🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 2, 2:23 pm, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
> On 02/01/2013 7:13 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 12:25 pm, "Nick from England" <pacif...@btopenworld.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "odraudeo@ hotmail.com" <odrau...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:31f7d317-dda1-4d52-a541-306f6b69d64c@d4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Ïçýñ
>
> >> I used to put 'the 21st. August 2013', but I was told at college last
> >> February I should put '21 Aug 2013' and that the former was "*so*
> >> old-fashioned" :-D
>
> > I thought people did it because they didn't know any better, not
> > because they thought it was modern!
>
> > When I turn on the radio occasionally, I hear advertisements saying
> > that something is going to happen on 'twenty January' - I think they
> > find it difficult to get actors who can pronounce the 'th', so they
> > just give up and leave it out. Actors who can speak properly are, no
> > doubt, much more expensive, so you can understand them going for the
> > cheaper option.
>
> I like the form 2013-01-01 because in Canada I sometimes see the US
> version and sometimes the UK one and get confused.
>
> So I confuse everyone who is unfamiliar with the version I prefer instead.
>
I wasn't really referring to the order, but to the use of 1st, 2nd and
so forth.

I agree that going DD-MM-YYYY is as sensible as going YYYY-MM-DD,
depending, a little, on what the information is - with most quotidian
stuff having the day first makes sense because that's what's most
important, while with a list of historical dates having the year first
might make more sense.

What makes no sense to me at all is having the day in the middle. One
can, I know, in English, say 'June the 21st last year', or 'in 1842'
because you're particularly marking the month, but that's the one
exception - even then, it usually makes more sense to say the '21st of
June last year'.