# reading, saying dates: September 1, 1939 / Tuesday, June 5th, 2012 / December 29, 1170



## torito

Good morning:

Today is Tuesday, June 5th, 2012. 

Would Speaking be:

Today is Tuesday, the fifth of June, twenty-twelve (or two thousand and twelve) in BE and 
Today is Tuesday, June the Fifth, twenty-twelve (or two thousand and twelve) in AE?

Thank you.


----------



## PaulQ

Today is Tuesday, the fifth of June, twenty-twelve (or two thousand and twelve) in BE


----------



## JustKate

Either of your options sounds fine to me, Torito, except that in the second one, I'd say "June fifth," leaving out that "the." I might very well say "Today is Tuesday, June the fifth," but I would almost never use that construction if I also needed to indicate the year. So I'd might say "Today is Tuesday, June the fifth," but if I needed to say the year, too, I'd say "Today is Tuesday, June fifth, twenty-twelve."

And as for the year, "twenty-twelve" is more common for me, but "two thousand and twelve" is also possible, but probably only if I wanted to sound extra formal or for emphasis or something like that.


----------



## Arthur Korablyov

Hello!

*World War II broke out on September 1, 1939 -* How should I read like this:

1) ... on the first of September in 1939.
2) ... on September one ___ 1939. - Do you need to put a preposition in front of the year?
3) ... on September the first in 1939?

Thank you!


----------



## George French

World War II broke out on September *the first, 19 hundred and 39.

*GF..

At least, that is how this Brit was dragged up to say that......


----------



## Sparky Malarky

*World War Two broke out on September first, nineteen thirty-nine.*

Mr. French is not wrong, but this is how I'd say it.


----------



## Vinco_Perdente

How do you read "December 29, 1170" ?
Is it <<December the twenty-nineth, eleven-seventy>> ?


<< Merged with previous thread. >>


----------



## Egmont

There's no "the" in what is written, and it says "29," not "29th." It should be read as "December twenty-nin_e_, eleven seventy."

You can say the date as "December the twenty-ninth, eleven seventy" or in many other ways, but you won't be reading "December 29, 1170" if you do.


----------



## morior_invictus

Yes, one of the possible pronunciations - "December twenty-nine, eleven seventy". (cross-posted)


----------



## lucas-sp

I would pronounce "December 29th" even if "December 29" were written.

I think there are many threads already about how to pronounce years, though.


----------



## JulianStuart

I think context may be relevant here (and possibly a difference between BrE and AmE)
Is this date written in the middle of a sentence or part of a listing of dates (with no sentences).
If it is in the middle of a sentence even if it were written as "On September 20, 1066, Harald Hardrada advanced on Fulford" - I would read that out loud as "September the twentieth ten sixty six" - but then my date reading style was learnt when I was still in the UK.

edit : Cross-posted with lucas-sp, another BrE date speaker


----------



## JustKate

lucas-sp said:


> I would pronounce "December 29th" even if "December 29" were written.



So would I.


----------



## lucas-sp

I didn't know that adding the -th (or -nd or -st or -rd) was considered British style! Interesting.


----------



## JustKate

I'm feeling considerable doubt about that. Maybe there's a slight tendency, but if so, I've never noticed it. I could very easily be wrong about speech, of course, but I edit documents for a lot of different people and I can say with some certainty that most *regularly* use the ordinals in their writing, which I notice because I generally remove all those instances of -th, -nd, -st and -rd. (There's nothing wrong with using them, I take them out just for the sake of consistency.) And if they use them so consistently in their writing, surely they use them in their speech, too. If there is a difference between AmE and BE in the use of ordinals, it can't be very significant.

The "the" in "December the 29th" - that probably is a genuine difference. Not that no AmE speakers use this, because probably most people do so now and then, but it's not nearly as common as "December 29th."


----------



## lucas-sp

JustKate said:


> The "the" in "December the 29th" - that probably is a genuine difference. Not that no AmE speakers use this, because probably most people do so now and then, but it's not nearly as common as "December 29th."


I agree completely. I wouldn't add the "the" or write it. I would definitely pronounce the "-th," although I wouldn't write it either.


----------



## Egmont

An important issue to me is whether one is saying a date or reading a date as written. The original question, now in post 9 of this merged thread, was about _reading_ a date. If I'm reading something someone else wrote, I don't feel I have the liberty to editorialize about how that person should have written it. If I'm saying a date, I can indulge my personal preferences. My preference would also be to say _29th_, not _29_, but that wasn't what we were given to read.

(Depending on the situation in which I was reading something and the nature of what I was reading, I might feel free to change what was written, but in the absence of any context beyond "How would you *read* this," I don't.)


----------



## alsoup

Hi everybody!

I have some trouble with dates! Which of the following dates is/are correct?

I'm going to come back on __________.
a. 20th July
b. July 20  (I have seen this one! 'I was born _on November 3_')
c. July 20th
d. the 20thof July (This could also be the answer to the question ' What's the date today please?', but what about in this sentence?)

Are there any other options?
thank you


----------



## cyberpedant

I have seen them all and would not be tempted to red-line any of them, although I would use c & d myself.


----------



## alsoup

Thank you cyberpedant!


----------



## natkretep

<Mod note: alsoup's thread (beginning with post 19) has been merged with an earlier thread.>


----------



## ohmyrichard

Dear Sir/Madam,

Just now I watched a video clip on the building of the transcontinental railroad of the USA. When the voice-over said, “Theodore D. Judah drafted a plan and sent it to Congress. ‘ A practical plan for building the Pacific Railroad —January 1, 1857…’”, I clearly heard it read “January 1, 1857” as “January one, eighteen fifty-seven”. When I first heard it, I thought I misheard it. So I went back to that sentence in the video and found the voice actor does read the date this way. However, I remember that _Collins COBUILD English Usage_ does not list this way of reading a date in its entry of “Days and Dates”. After watching the video, I went to the dictionary for a check and got the following paragraphs at the entry on p. 176:

You can say the day as an ordinal number, even when it is written in figures as a cardinal number. Speakers of British English say “the” in front of the number. For example, “April 20” is said as “April the twentieth”. Speakers of American English usually say “April twentieth”. 

When the month comes after the number, you use “of” in front of the month. For example, “20 April” would be said as “the twentieth of April”.

My question is, Can “January 1, 1857” be read as “January one, eighteen fifty-seven”? Or is it that in Theodore D. Judah's time people read dates this way while nowadays people no longer say it this way. By the way, I right now vaguely remember that I heard another guy read a date this same way in a documentary film about twenty days ago but I cannot recall where I heard it. Please help me with this problem. Thanks a lot. 

Richard

Mod note: Richard's thread has been merged with some earlier threads


----------



## JustKate

"January first, eighteen fifty-seven" is the way this would usually be said in AmE, but "January one" also sounds perfectly acceptable to me. It's a little unusual but not unusual enough to sound unidiomatic.


----------



## bluegiraffe

It would sound very strange in BE.


----------



## JulianStuart

I agree with kate, a little unusual but still just fine.

There is a (closed) 20-page thread on the variation in date format around the world. One topic is whether the -st or -th should be included when writing the date, and opinions and usage vary.  Some people, when they read a date written without the ordinal marker (1*st*, 2*nd*)  may feel the writer did not want to use the marker and respect their wishes when reading it and do not pronounce it. On the other hand, there are those who always say the marker but never write it. It's bit eek of a mess really, so neither way is wrong, but one is more common!


----------



## ohmyrichard

JulianStuart said:


> I agree with kate, a little unusual but still just fine.
> 
> so neither way is wrong, but one is more common!


 Do you mean that you agree with Kate that "January first, 1857" is more common than "January one, 1857"?


----------



## ohmyrichard

bluegiraffe said:


> It would sound very strange in BE.


Do you say "January the first, 1857" in BE?


----------



## ohmyrichard

JustKate said:


> "January first, eighteen fifty-seven" is the way this would usually be said in AmE, but "January one" also sounds perfectly acceptable to me. It's a little unusual but not unusual enough to sound unidiomatic.


Thanks for replying to my post. Could it be that the voice over is immitating the way people in Theodore D. Judah's time would say dates? Have you ever heard anyone around you or some present-day guy say it this unusual way somewhere?


----------



## JulianStuart

ohmyrichard said:


> Do you mean that you agree with Kate that "January first, 1857" is more common than "January one, 1857"?


Indeed I do.  Using "one" is rare.  Whether the word "the" is included seems to be more of a AmE/BrE split - British speakers are more likely to include the the, if my recollection of that long thread is right.


----------



## bluegiraffe

ohmyrichard said:


> Do you say "January the first, 1857" in BE?


Yes, we do.



JulianStuart said:


> British speakers are more likely to include the the, if my recollection of that long thread is right.


Yes, you are right.  I'd go so far as to say we always include the the.


----------



## ohmyrichard

JulianStuart said:


> I agree with kate, a little unusual but still just fine.
> 
> There is a (closed) 20-page thread on the variation in date format around the world. One topic is whether the -st or -th should be included when writing the date, and opinions and usage vary.  Some people, when they read a date written without the ordinal marker (1*st*, 2*nd*)  may feel the writer did not want to use the marker and respect their wishes when reading it and do not pronounce it. On the other hand, there are those who always say the marker but never write it. It's bit eek of a mess really, so neither way is wrong, but one is more common!


Hi, JulianStuart. You are the moderator, are you? Am I allowed to paste the link to the video I mentioned in my OP to let you have a look there so that maybe you can help me even better? Looking forward to your reply. Thanks.


----------



## Myridon

I sometimes hear "January one" in business jargon to emphasize the very beginning of the year.  I don't think the same person would ever say "January two."


----------



## Copyright

ohmyrichard said:


> Hi, JulianStuart. You are the moderator, are you? Am I allowed to paste the link to the video I mentioned in my OP to let you have a look there so that maybe you can help me even better? Looking forward to your reply. Thanks.


No video links ... sorry.


----------



## ohmyrichard

bluegiraffe said:


> It would sound very strange in BE.


How do you British people read "1 January 1857", which is written differently but refers to the same day? Thanks.


----------



## bluegiraffe

ohmyrichard said:


> How do you British people read "1 January 1857", which is written differently but refers to the same day? Thanks.



(The) First of January 1857


----------



## ohmyrichard

Thanks for telling me this. Goodness I asked this question; otherwise I would receive a warning which will frighten me for sure.


----------



## ohmyrichard

Myridon said:


> I sometimes hear "January one" in business jargon to emphasize the very beginning of the year.  I don't think the same person would ever say "January two."


Thanks. I find "January one" in business jargon interesting.


----------



## ohmyrichard

bluegiraffe said:


> (The) First of January 1857


So, you mean that British people read "1 January 1857" as either "the first of January eighteen fifty-seven" or " first of January eighteen fifty-seven", do you?


----------



## JulianStuart

I suspect the voice over was reading "verbatim", as I suggested above.  (By verbatim, I mean, taking each word and saying it exactly as it is written). It seems like a very formal title of an important document so they perhaps didn't want to add anything to it.


----------



## -mack-

I learned in high school and college writing courses to _never_ write st/nd/rd/th with dates because, being a date, it is implicitly ordinal. 

I would say the case of the voiceover is just an unusual usage (or verbatim reading as suggested above) — stick with _January first_ or _January the firs_t. _January one_ just sounds weird.


----------



## ohmyrichard

JustKate said:


> "January first, eighteen fifty-seven" is the way this would usually be said in AmE, but "January one" also sounds perfectly acceptable to me. It's a little unusual but not unusual enough to sound unidiomatic.


Hi, JustKate. How do you Americans read "1 January 1857"? Do you read it as either "the first of January eighteen fifty-seven" or "first  of January eighteen fifty-seven"?


----------



## -mack-

If we're saying the date before the month, it's also _the first of January_ in AmE, as in BrE.


----------



## ohmyrichard

-mack- said:


> I learned in high school and college writing courses to _never_ write st/nd/rd/th with dates because, being a date, it is implicitly ordinal.
> 
> I would say the case of the voiceover is just an unusual usage (or verbatim reading as suggested above) — stick with _January first_ or _January the firs_t. _January one_ just sounds weird.


Thanks for your advice. 
I've got a follow-up question for you. How do you Americans read "1 January 1857"? Do you read it as either "the first of January eighteen fifty-seven" or "first of January eighteen fifty-seven"?


----------



## bluegiraffe

ohmyrichard said:


> So, you mean that British people read "1 January 1857" as either "the first of 1857" or "first of 1857", do you?


No, I mean we'd say "the first of *January* 1857" or "first of *January* 1857".


----------



## ohmyrichard

-mack- said:


> If we're saying the date before the month, it's also _the first of January_ in AmE, as in BrE.


Thanks for your prompt reply. But bluegiraffe said in her last post in this thread that British people read it as "(the) first of January eighteen fifty-seven". To my knowledge, the bracket means what is placed in the bracket can be omitted and can also be used. That is, BlueGirrafe seems to say that British people have two ways to say the date written this way with the number before the month.


----------



## bluegiraffe

Yes, that's right.  It would be correct to say "The first of January" and that's how most people would say it.  However, in a casual conversation with a friend, I might just leave the "the" off and say "first of January".  I wouldn't say it in a full sentence - "His birthday is the first of January", but I would in a response "When's his birthday?" "First of January".

I was telling you from a BE view point, Mack appears to be American and we use language differently.

Oh and I'm not a he.


----------



## Morgan789

yes off course

first January , eighteen fifty-seven is the right way to telling this date in english ...


----------



## ohmyrichard

bluegiraffe said:


> No, I mean we'd say "the first of *January* 1857" or "first of *January* 1857".


Sorry, I made a mistake. I meant to ask whether you British people read that date as either "the first of January eighteen fifty-seven" or " first of January eighteen fifty-seven". I have corrected it. Please forgive me for my carelessness.


----------



## bluegiraffe

Morgan789 said:


> yes off course
> 
> first January , eighteen fifty-seven is the right way to telling this date in english ...



In which country?  We have stated above that we don't say it like that in either Britain or America.


----------



## ohmyrichard

bluegiraffe said:


> Yes, that's right.  It would be correct to say "The first of January" and that's how most people would say it.  However, in a casual conversation with a friend, I might just leave the "the" off and say "first of January".  I wouldn't say it in a full sentence - "His birthday is the first of January", but I would in a response "When's his birthday?" "First of January".
> 
> I was telling you from a BE view point, Mack appears to be American and we use language differently.
> 
> Oh and I'm not a he.


Thanks for your great explanation. And sorry for my mistake about your gender. To be honest, as a nonnative speaker of English, I find it very hard to decide whether one is a female or male based on their usernames.


----------



## ohmyrichard

bluegiraffe said:


> That's not just because you are a non-native speaker of English, we all have that problem.  I just thought you'd maybe realise the rabbit was female...


Thanks for your help. And I have got my mistake in that post removed.


----------



## ohmyrichard

Morgan789 said:


> yes off course
> 
> first January , eighteen fifty-seven is the right way to telling this date in english ...


off course?first January? the right way to telling? To be frank, your reply seems to confuse me a little bit.


----------



## ohmyrichard

-mack- said:


> If we're saying the date before the month, it's also _the first of January_ in AmE, as in BrE.


Hi, Mack. Will you Americans also say "first of January eighteen fifty-seven" dropping "the" when you say "1 January 1857" in a casual conversation with your friends or your family members as bluegiraffe, a Briton, does?


----------



## Myridon

ohmyrichard said:


> How do you Americans read "1 January 1857"? Do you read it as either "the first of January eighteen fifty-seven" or "first  of January eighteen fifty-seven"?


We generally don't write dates in that order.  I would read it as January first eighteen fifty-seven.


----------



## JustKate

ohmyrichard said:


> Hi, JustKate. How do you Americans read "1 January 1857"? Do you read it as either "the first of January eighteen fifty-seven" or "first  of January eighteen fifty-seven"?





Myridon said:


> We generally don't write dates in that order.  I would read it as January first eighteen fifty-seven.



Myridon is right that we don't usually write dates in that order, but I do see them written this way when corresponding with people outside the U.S. I would read it as either "the first of January, eighteen fifty-seven," or the same way as Myridon.



			
				ohmyrichard said:
			
		

> Hi, Mack. Will you Americans also say "first of January eighteen fifty-seven" dropping "the" when you say "1 January 1857" in a casual conversation with your friends or your family members as bluegiraffe, a Briton, does?



I would always include "the" on those occasions when I say the date first, before the month. In other words, while I often say "January first, eighteen fifty-seven" with no "the," I would always include that "the" in "the first of January, eighteen fifty-seven." I just noticed that Mack mentioned this too in post #21.


----------



## JulianStuart

Morgan789 said:


> yes off course
> 
> first January , eighteen fifty-seven is the right way to telling this date in english ...





ohmyrichard said:


> off course?first January? the right way to telling? To be frank, your reply seems to confuse me a little bit.


Don't worry - native English speakers  would not make a post like that.  Best just to ignore it as someone who doesn't know, only trying to help (but failing)


----------



## ohmyrichard

Myridon said:


> We generally don't write dates in that order.  I would read it as January first eighteen fifty-seven.


Thanks for replying, Myridon. Do you mean that you will read it still as January first eighteen fifty-seven even though the date is written as "1 January 1857"? Do most or many Americans do it as you do? I need to be thoroughly clear about it. Thanks.


----------



## ohmyrichard

JulianStuart said:


> Don't worry - native English speakers  would not make a post like that.  Best just to ignore it as someone who doesn't know, only trying to help (but failing)


Thanks for your advice, JulianStuart.


----------



## ohmyrichard

JustKate said:


> while I often say "January first, eighteen fifty-seven" with no "the," I would always include that "the" in "the first of January, eighteen fifty-seven." I just noticed that Mack mentioned this too in post #21.


Thanks a lot, JustKate.


----------



## -mack-

ohmyrichard said:


> Thanks for replying, Myridon. Do you mean that you will read it still as January first eighteen fifty-seven even though the date is written as "1 January 1857"? Do most or many Americans do it as you do? I need to be thoroughly clear about it. Thanks.



That form of writing the date is pretty unusual in AmE, to the point that someone reading aloud might pause for a second to decide how to say it. I think in most cases we would read it, "January first, 1857," regardless of how it is written because we so rarely use the construction "The [ordinal] of [month]." In AmE, in writing and in speech, the month nearly always precedes the date if it is mentioned.


----------



## RM1(SS)

ohmyrichard said:


> How do you Americans read "1 January 1857"? Do you read it as either "the first of January eighteen fifty-seven" or "first of January eighteen fifty-seven"?





-mack- said:


> That form of writing the date is pretty unusual in AmE, to the point that someone reading aloud might pause for a second to decide how to say it. I think in most cases we would read it, "January first, 1857," regardless of how it is written because we so rarely use the construction "The [ordinal] of [month]." In AmE, in writing and in speech, the month nearly always precedes the date if it is mentioned.



That's the normal way of writing dates in the US armed forces.  I would read it exactly as written: "One January 1857."


----------



## lucas-sp

RM1(SS) said:


> That's the normal way of writing dates in the US armed forces.  I would read it exactly as written: "One January 1857."


Of course that doesn't mean that it's the normal way of writing/reading dates in US English...

I actually agree with Mack:





-mack- said:


> I think in most cases we would read it, "January first, 1857," regardless of how it is written because we so rarely use the construction "The [ordinal] of [month]." In AmE, in writing and in speech, the month nearly always precedes the date if it is mentioned.


I would just say the date however felt most comfortably to me, regardless of how it was registered typographically.


----------



## ohmyrichard

RM1(SS) said:


> That's the normal way of writing dates in the US armed forces.  I would read it exactly as written: "One January 1857."


Really? Would you read "January 1, 1857" as "January One, eighteen fifty-seven" and "November 1, 2013" as "November One, two thousand thirteen" or "November One, twenty thirteen"?


----------



## lucas-sp

ohmyrichard said:


> Really? Would you read "January 1, 1857" as "January One, eighteen fifty-seven" and "November 1, 2013" as "November One, two thousand thirteen" or "November One, twenty thirteen"?


No, because those dates aren't written in the military style specified by RM1.


----------



## RM1(SS)

RM1(SS) said:


> That's the normal way of writing dates in the US armed forces.  I would read it exactly as written: "One January 1857."





ohmyrichard said:


> Really? Would you read "January 1, 1857" as "January One, eighteen fifty-seven" and "November 1, 2013" as "November One, two thousand thirteen" or "November One, twenty thirteen"?



No.  "January first, eighteen fifty-seven" and "November first, twenty thirteen."


ETA: Cross-posted with lucas-sp, whose reasoning is correct.


----------



## ohmyrichard

RM1(SS) said:


> No.  "January first, eighteen fifty-seven" and "November first, twenty thirteen."
> 
> 
> ETA: Cross-posted with lucas-sp, whose reasoning is correct.


 Your sentence of 'I would read it exactly as written: "One January 1857."' seems to have confused me a little bit, to be frank. Can we write "1 January 1857" also as "One January 1857"? I thought you would both write and read "One January 1857".


----------



## JulianStuart

When we see "one" written in letters, we read it as "one".   When we see 1 written as a number we normally read it a "one".  In the context of reading dates, however, it is quite variable, as the (merged) thread demonstrates


----------



## ohmyrichard

JulianStuart said:


> When we see "one" written in letters, we read it as "one".   When we see 1 written as a number we normally read it a "one".  In the context of reading dates, however, it is quite variable, as the (merged) thread demonstrates


To my understanding, which may be wrong, mack and RM1(SS) in posts 63 and 64 seem to suggest that there are some guys who would like to write "One January 1857" or "January One, 1857", either of which I have never seen before, and read "One January eighteen fifty-seven" or "January One, eighteen fifty-seven" if the date is written in those two unusual forms. My understanding may be wrong, but I am curious to know whether we can write  "One January 1857" or "January One, 1857" and read "One January eighteen fifty-seven" or "January One, eighteen fifty-seven" accordingly. I have never come across these written forms and reading ways.


----------



## JulianStuart

ohmyrichard said:


> To my understanding, which may be wrong, mack and RM1(SS) in posts 63 and 64 seem to suggest that there are some guys would like to write "One January 1857" or "January One, 1857", either of which I have never seen before, and read "One January eighteen fifty-seven" or "January One, eighteen fifty-seven" if the date is written in those two unusual forms. My understanding may be wrong, but I am curious to know whether we can write  "One January 1857" or "January One, 1857" and read "One January eighteen fifty-seven" or "January One, eighteen fifty-seven" accordingly. I have never come across these written forms and reading ways.


The way I read those posts was that they say that writing 1 January or January 1, using the number symbol 1 (not the letters one) is the normal way but they are saying that they can be read, in certain situations, as one January or January one, while many others will read the same text as "(the)first of January" or" January (the) first."  I don't think anyone is saying people write January *one* or *One* January.


----------



## natkretep

Richard, if you are interested in the way dates are _written _​(as opposed to how they are read out or said), you might do worse than to explore this mega thread:
Date format: British English / American / Canadian / Australian / NewZealand / South African ...


----------



## ohmyrichard

JulianStuart said:


> they can be read, in certain situations, as one January or January one, while many others will read the same text as "(the)first of January" or" January (the) first."  I don't think anyone is saying people write January *one* or *One* January.


Thank you for clearing this up for me!!!


----------



## ohmyrichard

natkretep said:


> Richard, if you are interested in the way dates are _written _​(as opposed to how they are read out or said), you might do worse than to explore this mega thread:
> *Date format: British English / American / Canadian / Australian / NewZealand / South African ...*


Thank you, natkretep. I will go there for a reading. Whenever we want to think a little bit deeply about a language issue, we will easily find that it could be so complicated.


----------



## lustdevil

Today I heard a broadcaster in a news program pronounce "July 15" as "July fifteen". 

However, as far as I know  this date should be read as "July the fifteenth" or "July fifteenth". 

And I had also heard someone said "february 20", while not "february 20th".

Is it acceptable that a professional speaker like a broadcaster casually say "fifteen"  instead of  "fiftteenth"? 

Or in anther way,  "July fifteen" or "february 20" is also an acceptable speaking way in Ameican English?

Tell me something you know , and I'll appreciate it.


----------



## perpend

I would use "fifteenth" and "twentieth".

Where did you hear this, lustdevil? What program on TV?


----------



## lustdevil

Maybe the sound 's' at the "July fifteenth" is too fast or indistinctively spoken, and I failed to catch it.


----------



## perpend

It may depend on the speaker of the news, as well, if he/she is not a native speaker.


----------



## lustdevil

Cnn student news.

Maybe it's my hearing problem, but I've tried my best to catch that slick 's', but it sounds "nothing at all " to me


----------



## lustdevil

perpend said:


> It may depend on the speaker of the news, as well, if he/she is not a native speaker.



He is definitely a native speaker, but I am not. This is the very problem.


----------



## RM1(SS)

lustdevil said:


> Maybe the sound 's' at the "July fifteenth" is too fast or indistinctively spoken, and I failed to catch it.





lustdevil said:


> Maybe it's my hearing problem, but I've tried my best to catch that slick 's', but it sounds "nothing at all " to me



  There is no 's' at the end of _fifteenth_.


----------



## natkretep

Mod note: lustdevil's thread (beginning with post 77) has been merged with an earlier thread.

Please read the earlier posts; some AmE speakers do say the cardinal number (_eg_ fifteen) rather than the ordinal number (_eg_ fifteenth) - see for example, posts 9 and 10 on the first page.


----------



## Katerina BE1

Imagine today's date is the 14th of July 
I live in Thailand and the vast majority of Thai people who work in customer service would say that 'Today is July Number 14'. Is it possible to say? It sounds horrible to me


----------



## Myridon

Katerina BE1 said:


> 'Today is July Number 14'. Is it possible to say? It sounds horrible to me


No, we don't say that in English.


----------



## KennyHun

The way the date format DD/MMMM/YY would be read has been discussed in this thread before, but what if it's in a sentence like the following?

'Human Rights Violations by Amal', dated 18 March 1985.
Would you still include "the" when reading that out loud if you kept the order? (...dated *the* 18 of March 1985?)

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Copyright

KennyHun said:


> 'Human Rights Violations by Amal', dated 18 March 1985.
> Would you still include "the" when reading that out loud if you kept the order? (...dated *the* 18 of March 1985?)


No.


----------



## KennyHun

Thanks! Would you prefer saying dated 18th of March 1985 or March 18th 1985, regardless of how it is written?


----------



## Copyright

KennyHun said:


> Thanks! Would you prefer saying dated 18th of March 1985 or March 18th 1985, regardless of how it is written?


I say it the way it is written:

on 18 March 1985
on the 18th of March 1985
on 18th March 1985
on March 18th, 1985

Just turn those into words.


----------



## KennyHun

Okay, thanks.



KennyHun said:


> The way the date format DD/MMMM/YY would be read has been discussed in this thread before, but what if it's in a sentence like the following?
> 
> 'Human Rights Violations by Amal', dated 18 March 1985.
> Would you still include "the" when reading that out loud if you kept the order? (...dated *the* 18th of March 1985?)
> 
> Thanks in advance.





Copyright said:


> No.



So here, the reason you wouldn't is because it is simply not there in written form or because it would not be grammatical to say/write "dated *the *18th of March"?


----------



## Andygc

Copyright said:


> I say it the way it is written:


Me too. 


KennyHun said:


> the reason you wouldn't is because it is simply not there in written form


Yes, as simple as that.


----------



## natkretep

I read out 18 March as 'the eighteenth of March'. I see_ 18 March_ as the equivalent written form.


----------



## kentix

natkretep said:


> I read out 18 March as 'the eighteenth of March'. I see_ 18 March_ as the equivalent written form.


----------



## Silver

Hi,

I was reading a pamphlet and there are many dates in the book:

During talks with Belarusian President Lukashenko on May 10, 2015, Xi Jinping, who had become......

And I finished reading this thread, I think I can read the date in my sentence as:

*May ten, 2015.
May the tenth, 2015.
May tenth, 2015.*

Am I right?

Thanks a lot


----------



## DonnyB

Silverobama said:


> Hi,
> 
> I was reading a pamphlet and there are many dates in the book:
> 
> During talks with Belarusian President Lukashenko on May 10, 2015, Xi Jinping, who had become......
> 
> And I finished reading this thread, I think I can read the date in my sentence as:
> 
> *May ten, 2015.
> May the tenth, 2015.
> May tenth, 2015.*
> 
> Am I right?
> 
> Thanks a lot


Only the second one (with *the*) would be used in BE.  

I believe in AE you would use either (1) or (3) or possibly both, but you'd need an AE speaker to confirm that.


----------



## Silver

Thanks a lot, Donny.

Are there any native speakers of AE can confirm this for me?


----------



## owlman5

I read dates roughly the same way that Donny does, Silver: 5/10/2015  =  May the tenth, twenty-fifteen.


----------



## Barque

I'd say _May tenth, twenty fifteen._


----------



## Muhd Yousaf

There is not such difference in the pronunciation of dates but people do mistake with this many of the times. One thing is clear that it is correct to write eightieth rather than just writing eighteen. In speaking people speak both of them. but in my knowledge it is correct to speak eightieth.


----------



## DonnyB

Muhd Yousaf said:


> There is not such difference in the pronunciation of dates but people do mistake with this many of the times. One thing is clear that it is correct to write eightieth rather than just writing eighteen. In speaking people speak both of them. but in my knowledge it is correct to speak eightieth.


Sorry, but I don't see why you would ever need to write or say eightieth in a _date.  
_
Are you sure you don't mean_ eighteenth?    
_
Oh, but welcome to the forum, by the way.


----------



## MedaBeda

Hello,

When I have in a text:

The shop will open Dec. 1.

Do I read it?
"on December the first" or "on the first of December"

And I have to say "on" or it can be only "December the first" and "the first of December" ?

Thank you


----------



## Barque

MedaBeda said:


> The shop will open Dec. 1.


If it doesn't have "on" you don't need to use "on" if you're reading it aloud.

I'd read "Dec.1" as _December first_.

If I wanted to read it as _the first of December_, I'd probably add "on".


----------



## MedaBeda

thank you Barque


----------



## Sasha Ivanov

<Added to this thread. Nat, Moderator>

I read my grammar books and accept that we should read dates like this: when it's written 25 October, we invariantly must say "the 25th of October", because it's "the 25th DAY" of October.
And for, some reason, when it's October 25, we, for some reason drop the "the", and say
"October twenty fifth".
Today, I was watching a senate hearing on YouTube
*Kirstjen Nielsen grilled by Congress over border security,* and the judge there says 
"One need look no further than the explosive events of October twenty five, when ...",
Why not "October twenty fifth"?
Is saying dates also preferential, or regional, as everything else in English?


----------



## lingobingo

None of those examples is wrong. And it’s not true that “when it's written 25 October, we invariantly invariably must say "the 25th of October". When it is said that way, the definite article is normally used, it’s true. But dates are both written and said in a number of different ways. October 25, October 25th, 25 October, 25th October, 25th of October, the 25th of October — they’re all used.


----------



## AnythingGoes

There are many ways to say dates in English. Some are used more in certain contexts. Some people read _25 October_ as "twenty-five October"—I think I've heard that in American military usage. You will also hear _October 25 _read as "October *the *twenty-fifth".


----------



## sdgraham

AnythingGoes said:


> There are many ways to say dates in English. Some are used more in certain contexts. Some people read _25 October_ as "twenty-five October"—I think I've heard that in American military usage. You will also hear _October 25 _read as "October *the *twenty-fifth".





> I read my grammar books and accept that we should read dates like this: when it's written 25 October, we *invariantly* must say "the 25th of October", because it's "the 25th DAY" of October.


Nonsense. and I think you mean "invariably," even though it's bad advice.


----------

