There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Reflexive encoded by case-stacking?
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: OT: coins (Was: Types of numerals)
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: OT: coins (Was: Types of numerals)
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: coins and currency
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: coins and currency
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: coins and currency
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: coins and currency
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: coins and currency
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. (unknown)
From: "Nomad of Norad (David C Hall)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. (unknown)
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: your mail
From: Nomad of Norad -- David C Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: coins and currency
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: coins and currency
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
From: Nomad of Norad -- David C Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Is there a World-Design mailing list?
From: Nomad of Norad -- David C Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Is there a World-Design mailing list?
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 20:14:42 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Reflexive encoded by case-stacking?
Hi!
Does any conlang (or natlang) encode reflexives by adding two
case-endings? E.g.
nominative: -as
accusative: -or
Assuming SOV:
'Peter loves Mary' = 'Peteras Maryor love.'
'Peter loves himself' = 'Peterasor love.'
or 'Peteroras love.'
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 19:58:55 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: coins (Was: Types of numerals)
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:57:27 -0500, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't know why the particular value for 1¤ was picked,
>
>
> It tends to be pretty close to the value of the US dollar (though
> they're not especially close right now). I'm sure that's no accident.
In fact it is - just coincidence. The rate for the euro, introduced on
Jan. 1st 1999, was set at the rate of the ECU (European Currency Unit)
on 31st Dec. 1998. I quote:
{quote}
The ECU was the official accounting unit of the European Union until the
end of 1998, and was notably used for the establishment of the EU
budget, as the numeraire of the ERM and as a reserve asset for central
banks. It was a basket currency made up of the sum of fixed amounts of
the 12 national currencies of the Member States of the European Union at
the time of the signature of the Maastricht Treaty in February 1992.
With the introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999, the ECU ceased to
exist, while the initial value of the euro (for example against other
currencies, such as the dollar) was defined as being equal to the value
of the ECU on 31 December 1998.
{/quote}
For more info see:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/euro/glossary/glossary_en.htm#ecu
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 15:05:29 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: coins (Was: Types of numerals)
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:58:55 -0500, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> {quote}
> The ECU was [...] made up of the sum of fixed amounts of the 12 national
> currencies of the Member States of the European Union at the time of the
> signature of the Maastricht Treaty in February 1992. {/quote}
The question remains as to how a selection of European currencies were
spontaneously weighted to coincidentally end up close to the US dollar.
I don't know where to find out what the dollar:ECU rate was in February
1992, though, and that might clarify the issue one way or the other.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 20:15:39 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> From some googling, _eurorna_ indeed appears to be the offical definite plural
> form in Swedish, but common is also _eurona_, which is prefered by some
> authorities (assuming writing a newspaper column on language use makes you an
> authority).
>
> Personally, I find the form _eurorna_ cringe-inducing.
Yep - and I cannot imagine the plural beings always 'euro' and 'cent' in
practice in English. I would expect _both_ euro _and_ euros, just we use
both pound and pounds now. For example, we say 'a five pound note', 'a
ten pound note', and a price like £5.50 is more likely to be said as
'five pound fifty' than 'five pounds fifty' tho £5.00 is more likely to
be 'five pounds' than 'five pound'. But the -s would always be included
in something like 'How many pounds have you got?'
While 'five euros fifty' will come quite naturally to us anglophones, I
find it difficult to imagine many people saying 'How many euro have you
got?'
Also, if the Greeks are allowed to call 100th of a euro one lepto, I do
not see why more flexibility could not have been given to other nations.
For example, if francophones prefer the term 'centime', why could they
not use it?
The official directive seemed a tad over-prescriptive to me. Also I
notice that no Irish forms were included. Yet Ireland has adopted the
euro as it currency and AFAIU the Irish has the same official standing
as the other languages given. So why wasn't it included, I wonder.
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 20:18:35 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
Nik Taylor wrote at 2006-01-07 00:15:39 (-0600)
> Nomad of Norad -- David C Hall wrote:
> > Another thing that seems a mite peculiar: Most of the coins I've
> > seen pictured from all over the world tend to be round, or at
> > least round-ISH.
>
> Historically, Japanese silver and small gold coins were
> rectangular, while large gold coins were oblong. Copper coins were
> circles with square holes.
>
I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "rectangular" and
"oblong"; the two words are effectively synonymous to me.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 15:24:20 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency
On 1/7/06, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep - and I cannot imagine the plural beings always 'euro' and 'cent' in
> practice in English. I would expect _both_ euro _and_ euros, just we use
> both pound and pounds now. For example, we say 'a five pound note', 'a
> ten pound note', and a price like £5.50 is more likely to be said as
> 'five pound fifty' than 'five pounds fifty' tho £5.00 is more likely to
> be 'five pounds' than 'five pound'.
Over here, $5.50 would never be read "five dollar fity"; it would be
either "five fifty" (by far the most common reading, but requiring
context to understand that (a) it's a dollar amount and (b) $5.50
rather than $550 or even $550,000 is meant) or "five dollars and fifty
cents" (or "five and a half dollars"). The plural of "dollar" is
always "dollars" (and adjective formations in English tend to eschew
plurals, hence the "twenty-dollar bill" rather than the
*"twenty-dollars bill"), so using "euro" in English sans -s sounds
very strange. By which I mean, it sounds French. :)
> The official directive seemed a tad over-prescriptive to me.
Indeed.
> Also I notice that no Irish forms were included.
And no Esperanto! For shame, EU! :)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 15:27:05 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
On 1/7/06, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "rectangular" and
> "oblong"; the two words are effectively synonymous to me.
Rectangular objects have corners; oblong ones don't. The
archetypical oblong shape is a circle cut in half and extended via
straight lines between the previously-connected endpoints of the
semicircles; the result is not an ellipse, but a different form of
"stretched circle".
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 20:49:05 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
Mark J. Reed wrote at 2006-01-07 15:27:05 (-0500)
> On 1/7/06, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "rectangular" and
> > "oblong"; the two words are effectively synonymous to me.
>
> Rectangular objects have corners; oblong ones don't. The
> archetypical oblong shape is a circle cut in half and extended via
> straight lines between the previously-connected endpoints of the
> semicircles; the result is not an ellipse, but a different form of
> "stretched circle".
Is this how the term is generally understood in America? Because it
isn't even given as a secondary usage in my dictionary. The New
Oxford says "having an elongated and typically rectangular shape / an
object or flat figure in this shape".
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 21:08:10 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency
R A Brown wrote at 2006-01-07 20:15:39 (+0000)
> Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [snip]
>
> > From some googling, _eurorna_ indeed appears to be the offical
> > definite plural form in Swedish, but common is also _eurona_,
> > which is prefered by some authorities (assuming writing a
> > newspaper column on language use makes you an authority).
> >
> > Personally, I find the form _eurorna_ cringe-inducing.
>
> Yep - and I cannot imagine the plural beings always 'euro' and
> 'cent' in practice in English. I would expect _both_ euro _and_
> euros, just we use both pound and pounds now. For example, we say
> 'a five pound note', 'a ten pound note', and a price like £5.50 is
> more likely to be said as 'five pound fifty' than 'five pounds
> fifty' tho £5.00 is more likely to be 'five pounds' than 'five
> pound'. But the -s would always be included in something like 'How
> many pounds have you got?'
>
> While 'five euros fifty' will come quite naturally to us
> anglophones, I find it difficult to imagine many people saying 'How
> many euro have you got?'
>
Michael Everson, perhaps best known for his work on Unicode, has been
vocal on this issue. See
http://www.evertype.com/standards/euro/
particularly
http://www.evertype.com/standards/euro/todayfm.html and
http://www.evertype.com/standards/euro/open-letter.pdf
>
> The official directive seemed a tad over-prescriptive to me. Also I
> notice that no Irish forms were included. Yet Ireland has adopted
> the euro as it currency and AFAIU the Irish has the same official
> standing as the other languages given.
Only since June of last year. Presumably the relevant documents
haven't (yet) been updated to include Irish forms.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 23:50:00 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency
Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [snip]
>
> > From some googling, _eurorna_ indeed appears to be the offical definite
> plural
> > form in Swedish, but common is also _eurona_, which is prefered by some
> > authorities (assuming writing a newspaper column on language use makes you
> an
> > authority).
> >
> > Personally, I find the form _eurorna_ cringe-inducing.
>
> Yep - and I cannot imagine the plural beings always 'euro' and 'cent' in
> practice in English.
[snip]
>
> Also, if the Greeks are allowed to call 100th of a euro one lepto, I do
> not see why more flexibility could not have been given to other nations.
> For example, if francophones prefer the term 'centime', why could they
> not use it?
I suppose the sensible thing in Swedish would have been to make it go _euro
euron euro euron_ by analogy with _mark marken mark marken_, or less happily
_euro euron euror eurorna_ by analogy with _krona kronan kronor kronorna_.
Instead, they went for the later with the complication you use _euro_ as indef
plural when talking about an amount of money (as opposed to individual coins).
This might be based on _öre öret öre/ören örena_, which shows the same
difference (it costs _2 öre_, but _2 ören_ lays on the table).
However, since _euror_ is the less common plural, and sits uneasy with Swedish
conjugations (it should be the pl of **_eura_, not _euro_!), _euro_ tends to
take over as *the* plural, and _eurorna_ is left stranded without a supporting
-r indef pl, and so feels weird. The form _eurona_ doesn't really make alot
sense either, but it fells better, since _-na_ is some sort of fall-back def pl
ending.
At the end of the day, _euro_ is just of atrocious from for a Swedish noun, and
outside measurements of the kind "30", you're better off the deeper you bury
it in compounds like _euromynt_ "euro coin".
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 22:48:45 -0000
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
--- In [email protected], John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> I've been thinking about numerals lately. Particularily, of all the
> possible different types of them. So here goes loads of rambling on
> the topic. Feel free to steal and/or shoot down any ideas
> contained. Commenting on them I even welcome. :)
> .:DEFINITIONS:.
> First off, I confess that I not sure if you'll recognize "numeral"
> as a word for the class of "number words" (never seen it used in
> that way in English; only Finnish.)
Yes, linguists writing in English use "numeral" to mean
"words for numbers", to distinguish from "number" usually short for
"grammatical number" (singular, plural, etc.)
> If it actually is something else instead, do tell. Also, whenever
> I'm talking about "series", I mean an ordered infinite series where
> each member is related in meaning to the respective natural number.
> By my definition, all numerals must belong in some series (won't be
> much of a numeral otherwise).
Including fraction-words and/or mixed-fraction-words?
> .:BASIC SERIES:.
> Every language probably has the two basic series - the natural
> cardinals (one, two, three...) and the natural ordinals (first,
> second, third...) But is it always the former which is the open
> lexical category?
Both of them technically have to be "open" in order to accommodate
numbers that have never before been used; but in some languages one or
the other is not, in fact, and "open" (sub-)category. In these
languages there is a highest number one can count to.
> Does any language have ordinals as the unmarked series instead?
I don't know of any language which has _all_ ordinals "marked"
(especially in contrast to cardinals); but as I understand it some
languages do have some ordinals that are just as "primitive" as their
corresponding cardinals.
(In set theory, as opposed to language, it is, in fact, the ordinals
that are primitive. Ordinality is intrinsically defined, whereas
cardinality is extrinsically defined; it is possible to have two
different standard transitive models of set theory which will
(perforce) have exactly the same ordinals, but an ordinal which
happens to be uncountable in one, happens to be countable in the
other, because the function matching it with "lowercase omega" is
available in the second model, but not in the first.)
> I presume that another universal feature is that while numerals are
> an open class (theoretically more open than any other word class -
> but lets not go there now), after a certain threshold, all words
> relating to a certain number will be derived similarily.
This is covered in some book either written by or edited by Greenberg.
What you say is true for those languages which "can handle"
(i.e. have words for) the biggest numbers.
In other words; up to a point, the statistical implicational
universal is, the higher numbers a language "can handle", the more
regular its lexicogeny (rhematopoeisis) for numerals will be.
> Typically there is a system to derive infinitely many cardinals and
> a system to derive other series from them.
That seems right.
> However... isn't it theoretically possible to have more than
> one "root series"?
_I_ don't see why not.
> This would probably need a base of 5 or less, given that languages
> usually have only very few non-cardinal numerals which are
> unrelated to the corresponding cardinal words.
I do not understand why you think your conclusion follows from your
premise.
> In fact, all languages I know of have 2 per series tops,
What does that mean, exactly? I don't understand.
(*)
> but I imagine languages with
> trial as a lexical number
Do you mean, "trial as a grammatical number", i.e., on a par with
singular and dual and plural (and, possibly, paucal)?
> might have 3?
Why would the two phenomena have anything to do with each other?
> Does this happen?
1) Since I didn't understand the question marked (*) above, I don't
understand this question either.
2) I suspect that if I understood this question, my answer would
be "I don't know", since I don't know enough 'weird' natlangs.
(**)
> And in a conlang, would a little more, maybe 5, be plausible?
Plausible? I don't know (see (*) and (**) above).
Feasible? _I_ see no reason why not.
> Hm, what I'm proposing might be a little hard to grasp from the
> previous paragraph, so I'll construct an example using English and
> base 2. So suppose the cardinal series goes
> "one, two, onety-one...";
> but meanwhile, the ordinal series goes
> "first, second, firsty-first..." rather than "...onety-first...".
> That is, NO ordinals would be derived from the corresponding
> cardinals - but rather simpler ordinals in a way similar, but
> perhaps not identical, to how more complex cardinals are derived
> from simpler cardinals.
1) I have never heard of a natlang for which _all_ ordinals were
thus-independent from the cardinals; but
2) I see no reason to prevent it in a conlang.
> One could then split the class of numerals into
> "cardinal-derived" vs. "ordinal-derived"
> - maybe even contrasting other series purely by their roots.
> This is almost trivial to extend into mathematical series
> (half vs. halfth),
1) What does "halfth" mean?
2) Many languages derive all but finitely many unit fractions from
ordinals. Thus, a language might have 1/2 (every language I know),
1/3 (Ancient Egyptian?), and 1/4 (English) may have lexically-
independent forms (in fact 1/2 usually does, and not only 1/3 and
1/4, but often 2/3 (Ancient Egyptian?) and 3/4 (no example comes to
mind), do as well); but "1/n" for "n" > 4 might denoted by a word
which is a short form of the phrase "the nth part of" (English, and
every other language I know how to express fractions in). If that
were the case for your language, how would a speaker speak of "the
qth member of a series" when "q" is a fraction? You'd have to be
able to derive an ordinal from an ordinal-derived numeral.
> but it might be possible to carry it over to grammatical series
> too - eg. contrasting the (cardinal-derived) word "trio" with an
> (ordinal-derived) word meaning maybe something along the lines
> of "third member of a trio".
Interesting and useful idea!
You should know, however, (as I suspect you do), that English, for
example, has many words for "a collection of two (somethings)"; the
words depend largely on what the "somethings" are, but for
many "somethings" there is more than one word denoting "two
(somethings)".
These words are often morphologically independent both of the noun
for the singular and of any other form of the numerals "two"
or "second". In other words, they are totally suppletive.
English also has many words for "a collection of (many somethings)";
these are called "collective nouns", and are likewise completely
suppletive. But the words for pairs, braces, yolks, etc. are
morphologically independent of the collective nouns, as well.
I believe English has a few words meaning "a set of three X" for just
a few particular nouns "X". I can't think of them at the moment.
Other English words for "n Xes" are regularly derived from source-
language borrowed words for "n"; duet, trio, quartet, quintet,
sextet, octet, etc.
> .:A MATHEMATICAL P.O.V.:.
> "Mathematical series" are technically still cardinal series, formed
> by filtering the natural numbers {0, 1, 2, 3...} thru some random
> function.
I think it may make more sense to think of them as functions whose
domain-of-variation for their argument is the finite _ordinals_,
rather than the finite _cardinals_. "X sub n" represents the nth
member of the series X; it does not represent n of anything.
> AFAIK, only reciprocals (half, third, quarter...) and exponents of
> the base number (ten, hundred, thousand...) are lexical anywhere.
Not forgetting that bases of four, five, twelve, and twenty, are also
pretty common compared to base-ten, according to Greenberg's book.
> Unusually geeky loglangs might have more, but even then, I doubt
> whether expressing eg. -6 as something along the lines of "unsix"
> would be useful.
> ...And speaking of negative numbers, why doesn't -1 have a name on
> its own, but i does?
But it does; "-1" is its name.
Actually many languages have a way to express missing-a-few or
lacking-a-few. King James's version of one of St. Paul's letters
translates his expression as "forty lashes save one", i.e., a certain
number of times he was sentenced to receive 39 strokes with a scourge.
> There are also often a handful of numbers which have an original
> name in addition to a derived one. Most of the ones I know have
> been used as units of measure (eg. Finnish "tiu" is a unit of 20
> eggs), but are there others?
You must mean like "dozen"=12 and "score"=20.
English has several compounds
with "score"; "twoscore"=40, "threescore"=60, "fourscore"=80, etc.
I would be willing to bet that most small numbers have such a word in
some natlang or other; and, that most products of two such numbers
(especially most squares of one of them) also have such words in
natlangs. An example is English "gross" for a dozen dozens.
> Eg. is the Latin prefix sesqui- really a *root* morpheme?
In English it is monomorphemic (which is what I think you meant),
although not really a _root_;
but in Latin it was a contraction of "semis que", where "que" is the
enclitic form of "and"; "semis que" means "half and".
Among English prefixes: "sesquidi-" means "two and a
half"; "sesquitri-" means "three and a half"; etc.
> If yes, I could imagine lexicalizing other simple fractions too,
> like 2/3 and 3/4.
"Two-thirds" was indeed "lexicalized" in Ancient Egyptian, so I've
read; and I wager "three-fourths" is lexicalized in some natlangs, as
well.
In fact, I think the following to be likely "statistical
implicational 'universals'";
*** For each n, many language which have a special word for 1/n, will
also have special words for 1-(1/n) and 1+(1/n).
**** Languages which have their own words for 1+(1/2) and 2/3 are
probably much more consistent about satisfying *** than other
languages.
***** A language which satisfies *** for a natural number n>2,
probably also satisfies *** for most or all natural numbers m where
1<m<n.
The above predict that:
:Most languages (such as English) which have a special word ("half")
for 1/2, should have a special word for 1+(1/2).
::Most languages which have special words for 1+(1/2) and 1/3, should
have a special word for 1+(1/3).
:::Most languages which have special words for 2/3 and 1/4, should
have a special word for 3/4.
> Also I might add the golden and silver ratios
> (the latter is sqrt(2)) to uwjge...
The golden ratio solves t = 1/(t-1); it is (1+sqrt(5))/2.
Sqrt(2) is about 1.41421356...
I do not know of any natlang which has words for either of these two
numbers, nor for any irrational number; including both algebraic
irrationals like these, and transcendental like "pi" and/or the base
of the natural logarithms (about 2.18281828459045...)
> Have any of you lexicalized any unusual numbers in your conlangs?
> I'd be interested to hear.
I haven't gotten beyond the cardinal natural numbers yet.
I don't think I intend to lexicalize any irrational numbers.
As for counting numbers, I haven't lexicalized them yet, but I've
worked on it some.
I intend to use a base of twelve, and allow a system to produce words
for exact counts up to anything less than:
twelve to the power of (twelve to the power of twelve).
Basically, for large numbers, I will have a system whose base is
(twelve to the twelfth power); its "coefficients" will be drawn from
the smaller-number system of:
"numbers with base twelve, up to
anything less than 'twelve-to-the-twelfth'".
> .:OTHER NUMERALS:.
> So what other numerals are there?
> English has at least the
> "group numerals" (single, duo, trio...), the
> "repeat numerals" (once, twice, thrice...)
Well-spotted. You're ahead of me.
> Polygons, time-period names ("biweekly") etc. are probably best
> considered compound words.
As in "fortnight" (fourteen nights) and "twelvemonth"?
Also I have seen "se'ennight" to mean "week".
> In Finnish, the simplest polygon names are derived instead
> (with the generic agentative affix -iO),
> and we also have a series which are used as
> the names of the number symbols,
In my "Math for Elementary Education Majors" courses, these were
called "numerals". (They were made up of "digits".)
> as well as sort of pronouns for things with ID numbers...
Interesting! The closest I've seen in any natlang is the ordinals.
The idea of "ID numbers" is too recent to have been incorporated into
any natlang developed before the 19th century, I thought; I'm
surprised Finnish has something (besides ordinals) for this.
Does an "ID number" have to be a natural number in Finnish?
> What other series are you aware of? I might be overlooking some
> obvious one.
If you're overlooking something, it isn't obvious to me yet (assuming
you have not overlooked negatives and reciprocals and powers-of-the-
base, which you did in fact mention before).
If I think of something else, I'll let you know.
!I just thought of one!
"Both" is to "two" as "???" is to "three", and so on.
In some English writing from the 19th and early 20th
centuries, "both" is used to mean "all three of", as well as "all two
of".
Might a series meaning
"all two of" (both), "all three of", ..., "all n of", ...
be useful? How much of this series is attested in natlangs?
> There's also the possibility of adding "generic" numerals to each
> series. "Number" is essentially a generic cardinal, and "nth" might
> count for a generic ordinal... but it's a little iffy beyond those.
"Numeral" is a "generic name-of-number", as well as meaning "name of
number".
"Digit" is a "generic numeral-less-than-the-base", as well as other
meanings.
"Part" or "fraction" might be a "generic reciprocal"; it might also
be a "generic positive-number-less-than-one". There is no reason
against polysemy, having it mean both.
> Would you think others were likely to exist?
Yes. (I know how helpful that one-word answer is; sorry.)
> ---
> That's all I can think of now; more maybe later, if the topic
> gathers any discussion...
It did.
Thanks, John.
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:54:33 +1100
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 1/7/06, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "rectangular" and
>>"oblong"; the two words are effectively synonymous to me.
>
>
> Rectangular objects have corners; oblong ones don't. The
> archetypical oblong shape is a circle cut in half and extended via
> straight lines between the previously-connected endpoints of the
> semicircles; the result is not an ellipse, but a different form of
> "stretched circle".
I would've called that an oval, even if it isn't proper.
The "proper" definitions I learnt for rectangle vs oblong is that a
rectangle is a four-sided shape with the angles being 90 degrees,
whereas an oblong is a rectangle where two sides are of different
lengths to two others. (A square is a rectangle with all sides equal.)
No-one uses these definitions normally, when a rectangle is an oblong
and no-one talks of oblongs.
--
Tristan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:55:36 +1100
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency
John Vertical wrote:
>> From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> John Vertical wrote:
>
>
>>>> to get â⬠it's just alt-2 :)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ray
>>>
>>>
>>> I see only gibberish there,
>>
>>
>> That's because your mailer's mangled it ;)
>
>
>> The symbol that you see as 'a-circumflex comma logical-NOT' was just
>> the euro symbol in Mark's mail & mine.
>
>
> Simple enuff. And now it seems to have been mangled to the 2nd degree...
> I'd've thought at least the comma would've stayed put? O_õ
I think it was not a comma but in fact a cedilla or like character. BTW:
you might try over-riding your browser's character set for that email
(View/Encoding, normally), then you might get something more visible...
--
Tristan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:08:50 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
Quoting Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > On 1/7/06, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "rectangular" and
> >>"oblong"; the two words are effectively synonymous to me.
> >
> >
> > Rectangular objects have corners; oblong ones don't. The
> > archetypical oblong shape is a circle cut in half and extended via
> > straight lines between the previously-connected endpoints of the
> > semicircles; the result is not an ellipse, but a different form of
> > "stretched circle".
>
> I would've called that an oval, even if it isn't proper.
>
> The "proper" definitions I learnt for rectangle vs oblong is that a
> rectangle is a four-sided shape with the angles being 90 degrees,
> whereas an oblong is a rectangle where two sides are of different
> lengths to two others. (A square is a rectangle with all sides equal.)
> No-one uses these definitions normally, when a rectangle is an oblong
> and no-one talks of oblongs.
The original meaning is apparently "comparatively long along one axis", which is
close enough to how I'd use it. The archetypical oblong shapes would be ovals
and whatever the 3D shape you get if you rotate an oval around its longest axis
is called.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 19:16:43 -0500
From: "Nomad of Norad (David C Hall)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: (unknown)
2513
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 19:18:57 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: (unknown)
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:16:43 -0500, Nomad of Norad (David C Hall)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2513
Really? Well, 8463 to you, then!
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 00:28:53 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
Tristan McLeay wrote at 2006-01-08 10:54:33 (+1100)
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > On 1/7/06, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "rectangular"
> >>and "oblong"; the two words are effectively synonymous to me.
> >
> >
> > Rectangular objects have corners; oblong ones don't. The
> > archetypical oblong shape is a circle cut in half and extended
> > via straight lines between the previously-connected endpoints of
> > the semicircles; the result is not an ellipse, but a different
> > form of "stretched circle".
>
> I would've called that an oval, even if it isn't proper.
>
> The "proper" definitions I learnt for rectangle vs oblong is that a
> rectangle is a four-sided shape with the angles being 90 degrees,
> whereas an oblong is a rectangle where two sides are of different
> lengths to two others. (A square is a rectangle with all sides
> equal.) No-one uses these definitions normally, when a rectangle
> is an oblong and no-one talks of oblongs.
>
Yeah. Pragmatically, calling a particular rectangle a "rectangle"
implicates that it isn't a square, i.e. it's oblong. That's what I
meant by "effectively synonymous". I don't know if I was ever taught
a specific definition for "oblong", but oblongs were definitely
rectangles in school.
Incidentally, the Wikipedia page for "Oblong" is a redirect to
"Rectangle".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblong
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 19:39:09 -0500
From: Nomad of Norad -- David C Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: your mail
Hi Paul (Paul Bennett), in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Jan 7 you wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:16:43 -0500, Nomad of Norad (David C Hall)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2513
>
> Really? Well, 8463 to you, then!
Sorry, I seem to be having an email malfunction. Today, I went to send
a message to the list, and it bounced back, saying it had come from an
address not recognised by the list-serv as being subscribed to the list.
And each attempt to re-send it did the same thing. I rebooted, re-sent
it again, and this time it got through, but with the body stripped out...
I then sent it yet again, and this time it bounced, complaining that I'd
already sent a message with the same body to the list before...
AAaaaaarrrrgghhhh...!
I haven't changed anything at my end, though, so I don't know what's up.
And when I look at my outgoing message in my local archive, everything
seems correct. On the other hand, somewhere between my machine and
the listserve, the "-conlang" is getting stripped out of the From: line,
so that [EMAIL PROTECTED] gets rendered [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in the headers of the bounced-back copy of the message...
Craziest thing I've ever seen.
I will now wait to see if THIS one bounces...
Testing, testing, one two three...
> Paul
--
Nomad of Norad (David C. Hall) --- *TeamAmiga*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.joshua-wopr.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For a dementedly wacky sci-fi continue-the-story project,
join my WebBBS. http://www.joshua-wopr.com/phpBB/index.php
----------------------------------------------------------
This is the Emergency Backup .Signature File, it kicks in
if the Regular Backup .Signature File fails to load.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 18:09:25 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
Nik Taylor wrote:
> One really has to wonder what the EU was thinking setting the Euro at a
> value that made .01 so nearly worthless. They should've set it at about
> 5 times that value, so that a 1-cent piece would've been more worthwhile.
I believe there were issues when changing from local currency
that made it necessary.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 18:15:53 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:07:23 -0500, Jefferson Wilson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Depends on whether you want the lowest number of _coins_ or the
>> lowest number of _types_. Binary is good for the former, but for the
>> latter you get the series: 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, etc. (Something to keep
>> in mind for those of us with duodecimal numbering systems I think.)
>> Hmmm, take this series up to 96, round each value to the nearest
>> number divisible by 5, and you have the American coinage system.
>
> There's a 15c coin?
What number of the series rounds to 15?
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 20:41:03 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 20:15:53 -0500, Jefferson Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Bennett wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:07:23 -0500, Jefferson Wilson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Depends on whether you want the lowest number of _coins_ or the
>>> lowest number of _types_. Binary is good for the former, but for the
>>> latter you get the series: 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, etc. (Something to keep
>>> in mind for those of us with duodecimal numbering systems I think.)
>>> Hmmm, take this series up to 96, round each value to the nearest
>>> number divisible by 5, and you have the American coinage system.
>> There's a 15c coin?
>
> What number of the series rounds to 15?
I read "nearest" as "next", which actually made fairly decent sense in
context, since rounding to the nearest gives two "5"s (1, 5, 5, 10, 25,
50, 100), whereas "next" gives a series of distinct values: 1, 5, 10, 15,
25, 50, 100.
Mea maxima culpa.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 03:07:30 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
--- In [email protected], Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The original meaning is apparently "comparatively long along one
>axis", which is close enough to how I'd use it. The archetypical
>oblong shapes would be ovals and whatever the 3D shape you get if
you >rotate an oval around its longest axis is called.
American Heritage Dictionary:
1) Having a long dimension, especially having one of two
perpendicular dimensions, as length or width, greater than the
other, elongated.
2) Having the shape of or resembling a rectangle or an ellipse.
I don't think that solves anything!! It seems as though definition
one would fit shapes like a lozenge.
BTW, the shape one gets when rotating an oval around its longest
axis is called a watermelon.
Charlie
http://wiki.frath.net/user:caeruleancentaur
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 23:11:29 -0500
From: Nomad of Norad -- David C Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)
For some reason, on the previous times I tried to send this message to
the list, it bounced back with some kind of error saying the address I
was posting it from wasn't recognised as being subscribed... but all my
previous mails to this list went through without a hitch, and I haven't
changed anything on my end since those other mails...
I seem to be having the email equivalent of a bad-hair day...
If someone has been tweaking the listserv software, they need to tweak
it back the other way... :-D
[tried to send it again]
Okay, I'm gonna try this one more time... munging something later in the
message which, it seems, there is a remote possibility is related to why
I can't get this message to go out onto the list...
Hi Tim (Tim May), in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Jan 7 you wrote:
> Nik Taylor wrote at 2006-01-07 00:15:39 (-0600)
> > Nomad of Norad -- David C Hall wrote:
> > > Another thing that seems a mite peculiar: Most of the coins I've
> > > seen pictured from all over the world tend to be round, or at
> > > least round-ISH.
> >
> > Historically, Japanese silver and small gold coins were
> > rectangular, while large gold coins were oblong. Copper coins were
> > circles with square holes.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "rectangular" and
> "oblong"; the two words are effectively synonymous to me.
Hmmmmm... T_o me, "rectangular" denotes a shape like a square, but
stretched out. That is, two longish, straight, parallel lines, and
two much-shorter parallel lines. While "oblong" to me would mean,
say, a disk-shape stretched out, or some other uniform shape -- that
wasn't itself consisting of straight, parallel lines -- stretched out.
One could take, say, two triangles, turn them so the top points were
towards each other, and merge them together at the points. That, to
me, would be an example of "oblong." Also, if you took those same
two triangles, turned them bottom to bottom and merged them, then
stretched the two ends way out.
At that, simply taking one triangle and stretching it way out might
well be considered "oblong."
On the other hand, a quick glance at my handy-dandy Websters tells me:
1. Having one of two perpendicular dimensions, as length or width,
greater than the other: rectangular. 2. Elongated.
...so I guess we're both right! :-D
I haven't laid eyes on these Japanese coins, though. Somebody got a
URL providing pictures?
--
Nomad of Norad (David C. Hall) --- *TeamAmiga*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.joshua-wopr.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For a dementedly wacky sci-fi continue-the-story project,
join my WebBBS. http://www.joshua-wopr.com/phpBB/index.php
----------------------------------------------------------
This is the Emergency Backup .Signature File, it kicks in
if the Regular Backup .Signature File fails to load.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 00:08:42 -0500
From: Nomad of Norad -- David C Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Is there a World-Design mailing list?
Earlier this week, I tried to join the world-design mailing list at
erzo.org, but never got a confirmation mail, or a bounce, or anything,
and definately haven't seen any messages coming *from* the particular
list afterwards.
I just now tried joining it again, after noticing that the message
headers in the previous attempt were screwed up. (I looked at the
Sent message in my local sent-messages archive, and it appears that
the wrong domain name somehow wound up in the From: line...) I am
waiting now to see if I get a response THIS time, but... somehow I
doubt I'll get any better results this time.
Does anyone know anything about the above list, or any other world-
design list? Did it move, or something?
--
Nomad of Norad (David C. Hall) --- *TeamAmiga*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.joshua-wopr.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For a dementedly wacky sci-fi continue-the-story project,
join my WebBBS. http://www.joshua-wopr.com/phpBB/index.php
----------------------------------------------------------
This is the Emergency Backup .Signature File, it kicks in
if the Regular Backup .Signature File fails to load.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 22:23:52 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is there a World-Design mailing list?
Nomad of Norad -- David C Hall wrote:
> Does anyone know anything about [...] any other world-
> design list?
There's conculture and world-create on Yahoo groups.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
