RE: TR35

From: Mike Ayers (
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 19:16:49 CDT

  • Next message: Mark E. Shoulson: "Re: Script vs Writing System"

    > From:
    > []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.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 13 2004 - 19:18:20 CDT