Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question already has an answer here:

On Thursday, 23 June 2004 at 3:15 pm, Mike Lollis resigned.

In British style, 1) Do I need to insert a comma after '2004'? 2) Can I leave 'pm' as is without the full stops in this abbreviation? 3) Do I need a comma after 'Thursday' as shown?

Or does this look better (and more polished)?

On Thursday, June 23, 2004, at 3:15 p.m., Mike Lollis resigned.

Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
The best treatment of question (2) here is, I believe, found in the How do I manage periods for abbreviations with parentheses, right before a period? thread (there are other relevant threads). –  Edwin Ashworth Apr 6 '13 at 12:38
add comment

marked as duplicate by Edwin Ashworth, Kris, tchrist, Mitch, cornbread ninja 麵包忍者 Apr 8 '13 at 3:06

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1 Answer

If you are asking about British custom and practice, it's usual to alternate words and numbers in a date: Thursday 23 June 2004, not Thursday June 23 2004. It's also common to omit commas in a date, particularly when it's part of another sentence which needs its own commas. You don't need full-stops in pm, but there is no harm in using them either.

I would write

On Thursday 23 June 2004 at 3:15pm, Mike Lollis resigned.

Actually, I wouldn't write that; I'd put the second clause first. But anyway...

Using a thin space in the time (before pm) would be an improvement — particularly when using non-lining figures — but that's not easy to achieve in normal settings.

You could put a comma after 2004 which would turn "at 3:15pm" into a parenthetical insertion:

On Thursday 23 June 2004, at 3:15pm, Mike Lollis resigned.

If you want a comma after Thursday it would be better to have another after 2004:

On Thursday, 23 June 2004, at 3:15pm, Mike Lollis resigned.

I would have no problem with a liberal scattering of punctuation as your edit suggests:

On Thursday, 23 June 2004, at 3:15 p.m., Mike Lollis resigned.

Summary

You can use as little punctuation as is grammatically required (just a single comma) or as much as might be justified (three commas and the abbreviation full-stops). What is necessary for British practice is to ensure that the day and date come before the month.

share|improve this answer
    
ISecond clause first? Like this? Mike Lollis resigned on Thursday 23 June 2004 at 3:15pm. At 3:15pm Thursday 23 June 2004, Mike Lollis resigned. –  whippoorwill Apr 6 '13 at 13:08
    
"Mike Lollis resigned on Thursday 23 June 2004." Including the time: "Mike Lollis resigned at 3:15pm on Thursday 23 June 2004." It depends whether the resignation is the thing you focus on (when it comes first), or the date (so you mention that first). –  Andrew Leach Apr 6 '13 at 13:09
    
I like your original (which you said you wouldn't use). Is it correct? 'On Thursday 23 June 2004 at 3:15pm, Mike Lollis resigned.' I prefer this, especially in a report format. –  whippoorwill Apr 6 '13 at 13:12
    
Yes, it's correct, but it's not my writing style. However there are circumstances where putting the date and time first might be reasonable, particularly when you are setting out a timeline for example. This is why it's important to give as much information as possible about the context of the question. –  Andrew Leach Apr 6 '13 at 13:16
    
Thanks, Andrew. Have a good day! –  whippoorwill Apr 6 '13 at 13:25
show 2 more comments

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.