comma with date: relations with the KRG since March 2003 have

R

rubes1

Senior Member
Israel
United States, English
Hello all, I would appreciate if you could kindly let me know the rule on commas following dates. I know we would say, for example, "In 1999, x happened..."

But what about in a case like this, should the date be followed by a comma or not and why? What is the rule?:

"Turkish relations with the KRG since March 2003 have reached a new phase."

Thank you!;)
 
    • In both these cases, the commas are used around dates that could be removed without destroying the grammar.

    Turkish relations with the KRG, since March 2003, have reached a new phase.

    You could remove "since March 2003" and the sentence would still be ok. That is one rule you can use.
     
    Thank you, so does that mean it would be incorrect to only place 1 comma after 2003. And would it be incorrect to have no commas at all?
     
    SweetSoulSister said:
    In both these cases, the commas are used around dates that could be removed without destroying the grammar.

    Turkish relations with the KRG, since March 2003, have reached a new phase.

    You could remove "since March 2003" and the sentence would still be ok. That is one rule you can use.
    Click to expand...

    In this case, (and in my opinion) you need both commas. The sentence would not be correct without them. If you were going to remove one of the commas, it would be the first comma before "since". But I think it is better with both commas.
     
    Sweetsoulsister, your advice is very helpful. Would you (or somebody else) say that in the following example (in which the date cannot be taken out) it is not necessary to have a comma after the date?

    The letter was sent only three months after the January 21, 2006 reunification ceremony...

     
    .
    Style guides may differ. Mine (A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations, Turabian, 1996) says that the comma is required after the year with the date in this form:

    On June 28, 1970, the convocation...

    But not in this form:

    On 28 June 1970 the convocation...

    Also:

    Turkish relations with the KRG since March 2003 have reached a new phase.

    Here the prepositional phrase as adverb may be restrictive information-- it may define which period of relations is being spoken of-- so commas may not be required. Also, when month and year alone are mentioned, there should be no punctuation between them. Punctuation after the year is possible, of course:

    After the Crash of October 1929, many men jumped out of their windows.


    Here are similar guidelines from an online Guide to Grammar and Writing:

    "Note that we use a comma or a set of commas to make the year parenthetical when the date of the month is included:
    • July 4, 1776, is regarded as the birth date of American liberty.
    Without the date itself, however, the comma disappears:
    • July 1776 was one of the most eventful months in our history.
    In international or military format, no commas are used:
    • The Declaration of Independence was signed on 4 July 1776."
     
    rubes1 said:
    Hello all, I would appreciate if you could kindly let me know the rule on commas following dates. I know we would say, for example, "In 1999, x happened..."

    But what about in a case like this, should the date be followed by a comma or not and why? What is the rule?:

    "Turkish relations with the KRG since March 2003 have reached a new phase."

    Thank you!;)
    Click to expand...

    Personally speaking, I think the sentence would be better written as follows:

    Turkish relations with the KRG have reached a new phase since March 2003, or
    Since March 2003, Turkish relations with the KRG have reached a new phase.
     
    Mister Micawber said:
    .
    Style guides may differ. Mine (A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations, Turabian, 1996) says that the comma is required after the year with the date in this form:

    On June 28, 1970, the convocation...

    But not in this form:

    On 28 June 1970 the convocation...
    Click to expand...
    This is correct according to MLA (Modern Language Association) guidelines as well. The reasoning is that it's hard to read two sets of numbers in a row, as in June 28 1970. They're easier to read quickly when the numbers are separated with a comma, as in June 28, 1970.

    When you write 28 June 1970, the numbers are already separated, so no comma is needed.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top