Dates using ordinal numbers and superscripts
Richard Thieme
as in the following?
http://www.fsa.go.jp/en/news/2008/20080915-1.html
I see it so often in Japanese use that I think it must be taught somewhere.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Jim Lockhart
No style book I have on my shelves (see http://www.jpntranslations.com/4Translators/Style%20and%20Writing%20References.htm
for a partial list) recommends this usage.
I HAVE seen a few style books and the like that mention it as a product
of (or blame it on) Microsoft's attempts to showcase some of the
features of MS-Word; in this case, Word's ability to automatically make
formatting changes. (Citations on request.)
Even the style of rendering dates with ordinal endings is largely viewed
as an anachronism, since it is customary to read dates--whether styled,
e.g., 2 October or October 2, as if they were written as ordinals. The
only publication I know of that still uses it is, oddly enough, The
Economist.
That said, the practice of using superscripted ordinal markers is common,
I believe, in French and Spanish, and perhaps other Continental
languages as well. The Japanese (and Microsoft), however, should not
that they have their practices, and we (English writers) have ours, and
they are not necessarily the same.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dates
Some people may sneer because this is Wikipedia, but they should have a
look before they do: the style manual is stable and solidly in line with
common professional publishing practice.
HTH,
--Jim Lockhart
Doreen Simmons
FWIW,
Doreen
>Is it British style to use ordinal numbers and superscripts to express dates
>as in the following?
>
>http://www.fsa.go.jp/en/news/2008/20080915-1.html
>
>I see it so often in Japanese use that I think it must be taught somewhere.
>
>Regards,
>
>Richard Thieme
Doreen Simmons
jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp
Jim Lockhart
On 2 Oct 2008 14:30:14 +0900
Doreen Simmons wrote:
> I continue to use them in what I consider to be formal writing.
Superscripted? (Serious question--this is something that bugged me for a
long time, too. And if the superscripted styling was previous
conventional, when did the transition to not superscripting take place?)
Curiously yours,
--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo, JPN
Jim Lockhart
On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:43:19 +0900
I asked:
> > I continue to use them in what I consider to be formal writing.
>
> Superscripted? (Serious question--this is something that bugged me for a
> long time, too. And if the superscripted styling was previous
> conventional, when did the transition to not superscripting take place?)
Never mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculine_ordinal#English
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Jim Lockhart" <jamesal...@gmail.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年10月2日 15:49
件名 : Re: Dates using ordinal numbers and superscripts
Actually I don't think that link answers your, very good, question, except
to say that it had happened by the late 20th century.
Would like to see someone who knows something in more detail.
I would suspect that the typewriter had something to do with it, but that is
just a guess.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Jim Lockhart
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:59:38 +0900
Richard Thieme wrote:
> >> Superscripted? (Serious question--this is something that bugged me for a
> >> long time, too. And if the superscripted styling was previous
> >> conventional, when did the transition to not superscripting take place?)
> >
> > Never mind:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculine_ordinal#English
> >
>
> Actually I don't think that link answers your, very good, question, except
> to say that it had happened by the late 20th century.
Yes, but it provides enough information to cover my a..., uh, butt in
the event that a client wants to challenge my editorial decision to or
not to superscript in a given instance.
I have had one client once counter my "_Chicago_ doesn't say to do it"
with "maybe because it's so common that it's taken for granted,
otherwise why would Microsoft make it automatic?" (May reply--"Because
Microsoft is full of idiots" a la Dr House--didn't cut it: This guy
smelled a chance to demand a discount.)
> Would like to see someone who knows something in more detail.
Actually, I would too. And Doreen's probably the one who would know it.
> I would suspect that the typewriter had something to do with it, but that is
> just a guess.
What do (or, did) people do when writing manuscripts?
There is a fair amount of Webidence indicating that it is still house
style in some places. (By Webidence, I don't mean incidents of it on the
Web, but rather discussions of it--my search string was "superscript
ordinals".)
HTH,
Derek Lin
modified British system), but I write "2nd (superscripted) October,
2008" as a matter of personal preference when not producing text for
other people with stylistic requirements. And I'm only in my
mid-twenties, so this is a fairly recent thing.
FWIW as well,
Derek Lin
Patrick Donelan
write "2nd (superscripted) October, 2008". I seem to remember learning to
write dates that way in school in Ireland in the 1960s (i.e., writing the
"nd" as a superscript by hand). I don't think there is anything recent
about this.
Regards
Patrick Donelan
Japanese to English technical translations
Quezon City, Philippines
Derek Lin
merely a thing of the past", but used a misleading expression, it seems.
I also remember learning to write that way in school.
Derek Lin
Doreen Simmons
On 2008/10/02, at 14:43, Jim Lockhart wrote:
>
>
> On 2 Oct 2008 14:30:14 +0900
> Doreen Simmons wrote:
>
>> I continue to use them in what I consider to be formal writing.
>
> Superscripted? (Serious question--this is something that bugged me for
> a
> long time, too. And if the superscripted styling was previous
> conventional, when did the transition to not superscripting take
> place?)
In my case, when I got a typewriter that wouldn't do the superscripts
that I had been taught in school (rather before the 1960s, actually).
Now we have computers that put them in, sometimes when we'd rather they
didn't, the custom has changed again.
Doreen Simmons
jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp
Alan Siegrist
> In my case, when I got a typewriter that wouldn't do the superscripts
> that I had been taught in school (rather before the 1960s, actually).
When I learned to type, naturally the typewriter would not automatically do
superscripts or subscripts but we were taught to "fake" a superscript or
subscript by manually rolling the paper up by half a line, typing the
superscript, and then rolling the paper back down (or vice versa for a
subscript).
Naturally, it took a bit of skill to get the paper back to the right place
after the superscript so that your manuscript did not look like a ransom
note, but it worked well enough. The typewriters we used had some sort of
system that allowed you to "feel" exactly where a single line or half line
was, and sort of "thunked" back into place. (It's sort of hard to describe.)
At any rate, I still used superscripts and subscripts when appropriate, even
when typing.
However, for dates, we were taught not to use ordinal numbers so we used the
simple September 15, 2008, which matches Chicago Manual style.
In other instances where numeric ordinals are called for, I still think
superscripts are preferable to the inline style called for by Chicago.
Modern word processors make formatting with superscripts not a problem at
all.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA
Alan Siegrist
> we were taught to "fake" a superscript or
> subscript by manually rolling the paper up by half a line, typing the
> superscript, and then rolling the paper back down
Wait, that's backwards. You roll the paper *down* half a line for a
superscript. But you get the idea.
Richard Thieme
>
> However, for dates, we were taught not to use ordinal numbers so we used
> the
> simple September 15, 2008, which matches Chicago Manual style.
Yes the American style is not to use superscripts for dates, but of course I
remember doing what you describe for footnotes. I was surprised, however, to
find out that our friends on the other side of the Atlantic didn't follow
suit. I suspect this has to do with the ubiquity of the typewriter in the
US, as opposed to the UK (i.e., even most white collar men of my father's
generation could type. I gather this was not the case in the UK). And of
course we had greater penetration of word processing skills just a few years
earlier.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Jeremy Whipple
> I have had one client once counter my "_Chicago_ doesn't say to do it"
> with "maybe because it's so common that it's taken for granted,
> otherwise why would Microsoft make it automatic?" (May reply--"Because
> Microsoft is full of idiots" a la Dr House--didn't cut it: This guy
> smelled a chance to demand a discount.)
> There is a fair amount of Webidence indicating that it is still house
> style in some places. (By Webidence, I don't mean incidents of it on the
> Web, but rather discussions of it--my search string was "superscript
> ordinals".)
- Word wants to make the letters that accompany ordinal numbers — the st in first, the nd in second, the rd in third, and the th in other numbers — superscripts: not 11th, but 11th. Humbug. Look around: you'll notice that no professionally printed books use superscripts, and neither should you. Besides, most house styles say most ordinal numbers should be spelled out: eleventh.
At Japan Echo, btw, the house style is spell out ordinals “first” through “hundredth,” e.g., “twenty-first century,” so those pesky Word superscripts rarely show up.
Jeremy Whipple <jwhi...@gol.com>
Setagaya-ku, Tokyo
Richard Thieme
Does anyone have a recommendation for a good British style manual that would
be of reference for these questions?
I have Fowlers, but I am looking for something that is more detailed, like
Chicago Style in the US, or even the New York Times Style Manual.
I understand that there is nothing as authoritative in the UK, but . . .
Regards,
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Doreen Simmons" <jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年10月2日 22:59
件名 : Re: Dates using ordinal numbers and superscripts
Trevor
You could try The Oxford Manual of Style by Robert Ritter published by
Oxford University Press. It's a good general guide to UK style.
Trevor
Trevor
Richard Thieme wrote:
> Does anyone have a recommendation for a good British style manual that would
> be of reference for these questions?
>
> I have Fowlers, but I am looking for something that is more detailed, like
> Chicago Style in the US, or even the New York Times Style Manual.
>
> I understand that there is nothing as authoritative in the UK, but . . .
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Thieme
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> 宛�E : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
> 送信日晁E: 2008年10朁E日 22:59
Matt Stanton
> Chicago Style in the US, or even the New York Times Style Manual.
>
> I understand that there is nothing as authoritative in the UK, but . . .
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Thieme
but as you say, it is not "authoritative" in the sense that pretty
much every writer, translator, editor, etc. feels an obligation to
follow it to the letter whenever they put their fingers on a keyboard.
Frankly, I find the American biblification of the CMS rather worrying.
Many Americans seem to have lost sight of what a style guide/manual
is: a list of selections of one form out of a range of acceptable
forms. A style guide/manual is not there to teach you how to write -
you should know that already. It is there to ensure consistency in
style across all publications produced by the creator of the style
guide. That is all. So unless you write for Chicago University Press,
throw your CMS in the bin. If you're not a Wikipedia contributor,
delete the Wikipedia Manual of Style from your bookmarks. Find your
own style. This is the prevailing attitude in the UK, and explains why
written British English has been so much more "liquid" than American
English during the last twenty or thirty years.
Matt Stanton
Don Graham
the order day, month, year, without internal punctuation, as 2
November 1993.,, In US style the order is month, day, year: November
2, 1993... Do not use the endings st, rd or th in conjucntin with a
figure, as in 12th August 1960, unless copying another source: dates
in leters or other documents quoted verbatim must be as in the
original."
So standard British and US style differ in the order of date and month
and the use of the comma, but both use cardinal numbers to express the
day.
Regards,
Don Graham
Marc Adler
forms. A style guide/manual is not there to teach you how to write -
you should know that already. It is there to ensure consistency in
Nowhere in the Chicago Manual of Style does it tell you how to write. It tells you how to punctuate, how to format lists, what words to capitalize in titles, etc.
written British English has been so much more "liquid" than American
English during the last twenty or thirty years.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Jim Lockhart
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 06:17:19 -0500
Marc Adler wrote:
> > forms. A style guide/manual is not there to teach you how to write -
> > you should know that already. It is there to ensure consistency in
>
> Nowhere in the Chicago Manual of Style does it tell you how to write. It
> tells you how to punctuate, how to format lists, what words to capitalize in
> titles, etc.
Pretty much my reaction, too. I'll take it a step further: nowhere in
CMS does the manual claim to be the final word on style, either; and in
many places it recommends variations from UoC house style as well. It's
editors also mention when they are bucking majority trends. It explains
why newspaper styles differ from those common in book publishing, too.
I use CMS as my primary style guide, partly because it is so popular
(which is why it's "authoritative") in US publishing, because almost
none of my Japanese clients have their own English house style.
> > written British English has been so much more "liquid" than American
> > English during the last twenty or thirty years.
>
> BE has been more "liquid" because of Americans' slavish adherence to style
> guides? Interesting. Could you define or give some examples of "liquidity"
> in writing?
I assume by _liquidity_, fluidity is meant. Sounds like a charitable way
to express "arbitrary" to me. In other words, I see this as an admission
the BrE style is a mess. Everybody punctuates how he or she see fit, and
damn the reader.
But I really wonder whether BrE or Commonwealth-English style is all
that arbitrary and messy. Even if we accept that Fowler's and the Oxford
manual are not taken as all that authoritative--or not as authoritative as
CMS--publishers and publications working in BrE seem to have house
styles just as those in North America do, and the also seem to have some
shared conventions as well.
If there's any arbitrariness and messiness in BrE writing, it's probably
more attributable to a lack of discipline, willingness to follow
conventions someone else has set, or just plain old snotty conceit.
On the other hand, let alone the notion that it is unhealthy, I have
trouble accepting that AmE writers slavishly adhere to CMS, especially
given the plethora of style manuals available as well as range of them
mandated by certain professional and other organizations in the US and
Canada.
Matt Stanton
> tells you how to punctuate, how to format lists, what words to capitalize in
> titles, etc.
you don't need to reach for a style guide to find out how to do these
things. You should read, observe, and settle on an approach that suits
you.
> BE has been more "liquid" because of Americans' slavish adherence to style
> guides? Interesting. Could you define or give some examples of "liquidity"
> in writing?
commas and full stops are two significant evolutions that American
English has got left behind on.
Matt Stanton
Matt Stanton
> CMS does the manual claim to be the final word on style, either; and in
> many places it recommends variations from UoC house style as well. It's
> editors also mention when they are bucking majority trends. It explains
> why newspaper styles differ from those common in book publishing, too.
the status of a de-facto bible on English-language writing. The
creators of style guides know what they are and what they are for.
These people aren't the problem.
> I use CMS as my primary style guide, partly because it is so popular
> (which is why it's "authoritative") in US publishing, because almost
> none of my Japanese clients have their own English house style.
me, that fit with my ideas about how English should be presented.
> I assume by _liquidity_, fluidity is meant. Sounds like a charitable way
> to express "arbitrary" to me. In other words, I see this as an admission
> the BrE style is a mess. Everybody punctuates how he or she see fit, and
> damn the reader.
ensuring consistency across publications from the same source.
> But I really wonder whether BrE or Commonwealth-English style is all
> that arbitrary and messy. Even if we accept that Fowler's and the Oxford
> manual are not taken as all that authoritative--or not as authoritative as
> CMS--publishers and publications working in BrE seem to have house
> styles just as those in North America do, and the also seem to have some
> shared conventions as well.
working for the publishers concerned.
> If there's any arbitrariness and messiness in BrE writing, it's probably
> more attributable to a lack of discipline, willingness to follow
> conventions someone else has set, or just plain old snotty conceit.
"conventions" don't really exist to the same extent in the UK, so
writers don't feel any need to follow rules someone else has
arbitrarily set. Admittedly, there's a bit of chicken and egg here.
Perhaps the liquidity is due only to the fact that a dominant force
like the CMS has never emerged.
> On the other hand, let alone the notion that it is unhealthy, I have
> trouble accepting that AmE writers slavishly adhere to CMS, especially
> given the plethora of style manuals available as well as range of them
> mandated by certain professional and other organizations in the US and
> Canada.
writers, including a lot of the translators on this list, do. Far too
many people just reach for the CMS instead of asking themselves
whether they should do this or that style wise.
Matt Stanton
Jim Lockhart
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 09:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Matt Stanton wrote:
> The shift towards open punctuation and the dropping of unnecessary
> commas and full stops are two significant evolutions that American
> English has got left behind on.
"Left behind" only if one accepts that these evolutions are positive. I
don't, and I find their rationale ("people are/should be intelligent/
intuitive enough to know what is meant without such crutches!") are
expression for precisely the snooty attitude I've come to expect of
linguistic snobs.
Jim Lockhart
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 09:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Matt Stanton wrote:
> > On the other hand, let alone the notion that it is unhealthy, I have
> > trouble accepting that AmE writers slavishly adhere to CMS, especially
> > given the plethora of style manuals available as well as range of them
> > mandated by certain professional and other organizations in the US and
> > Canada.
>
> I'm sure you don't, Jim, but I think you'll agree that a lot of
> writers, including a lot of the translators on this list, do. Far too
> many people just reach for the CMS instead of asking themselves
> whether they should do this or that style wise.
Never experienced it. In my experience, working with as a freelancer,
in-house with editors, and on my own as a checker/rewriter of others'
translations, it is those who consult style manuals who are most likely
not only to sit back and consider stylistic issues, but also be equipped
with the awareness needed to make stylistic decisions in given
situations.
Fwiw, I've worked under or with translators and editors who are native
writers of UK, Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian English as well as
US English.
In my experience, it has usually been people who are contemptuous (or
totally unaware) of stylistic considerations (and manuals) who have been
a problem.
Matt Stanton
emerge, the freedom enjoyed by British writers will in time ensure
that these trends go out of fashion. Trends can be good or bad, but I
believe that it's important to have an environment in which they are
free to emerge. American English just seems to have got stuck in a
timewarp somehow, and I put at least part of the blame on the hegemony
of the CMS.
Matt Stanton
Trevor
Council of Biology Editors Inc published by Cambridge University Press
is the best style guide I've come across for scientific work. Chapter 12
in my copy covers Time and Date.
HTH
Trevor