Re: Kaktovik Inupiaq numerals
Den 2012-04-28 12:50, skrev Richard Wordingham richard.wording...@ntlworld.com: On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:50:15 -0700 Ken Whistler k...@sybase.com wrote: On 4/27/2012 10:45 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote: If they are to be adopted by the CLDR, the digits need to be coded consecutively. I doubt this matters in any case, because this proposed use is for a vigesimal system, which has digits 0..19, not digits 0..9. Trying to treat the first 10 digits as decimal digits in CLDR could accomplish nothing, IMO. I don't believe the exclusion of non-decimal bases is set in stone. So, while they wouldn't fit in to CLDR as it stands now, it would not take a huge change to add them. CLDR used to require sequentially encoded decimal digits, but my understanding is that that is no longer the case. And indeed, the numeral systems need not be decimal, or even positional. Roman numerals are supported, as are (e.g.) Armenian numerals, and traditional Chinese numerals (non-positional, using multiplier words). While vigesimal systems aren't supported (in CLDR) to the degree that any got *named*, in the way some other systems have been, there is still *some* support. See e.g. http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/trunk/common/rbnf/nci.xml (a full-fledged vigesimal system in those rules) for spelling out numbers as words in Classical Nahuatl. There is also http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/trunk/common/rbnf/kl.xml, for spelling out numbers in Kalaallisut (Greenlandic), but it is not full-fledged vigesimal. These RBNF rules are based on what I could find out from sources on the web a few years ago. If anyone has corrections/extensions/variation to these, or additions for other languages using vigesimal systems (yes, I did see that there was some data on the Wikipedia pages referenced), please send them to me, preferably with contact information to someone in the know, and I'll see what I can do. I cannot use vigesimal digits, though, since none are as yet encoded. But if some set of vigesimal digits were to be encoded, supporting them via RBNF would likely be the first point of support in CLDR. Furthermore, what Inuit has is a vigesimal *counting* system, as the article indicates. But this innovated set of numerals, is attempting to turn this into a full-blown radix-20 numerical system, which I doubt has any cultural validity. I presume you are talking about how the hundreds are (or were) traditionally expressed. The Inuit number system is another case of the rather widespread use of mixed 5/20 counting systems, which count 4 hands of 5 into groups of 20. Indeed, it immediately made me think of Welsh, where native-speakers' use of their vigesimal system has been hammered by the use of Arabic numerals. (In England, resistance to this 'heathen notation' collapsed long ago.) Before anyone points it out, I do know that Welsh _pymtheg_ '15' and possibly even _ugain_ '20' ultimately derive from a (superseded) decimal system. However, Welsh goes decimal at 100, so this vigesimal notation would not match the language at all for higher numbers. I don't think combining diacritics makes sense in this case. Rather, this kind of construction is better handled by taking the graphic elements for 5, 10, and 15, and ligating them in a font for the combined units. So the only elements requiring encoding would be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, in order to fully represent this system. No. One must be able to distinguish ONE, FIVE (= '25') and FIVE, ONE (= '101') from the notation for '6'. Or are you suggesting that rendering of ZWJ should be *essential* for the semantics, not just for acceptability? While I would have liked to have seen the use of combining characters (or ligation) in certain other cases where it is not present in Unicode, I think that that approach would be very inappropriate here; this is for digits for use in a positional system). Just encode (when that time comes) each of the new digits corresponding to 0, ..., 19 *atomically*. The Kaktovik digits are niftily designed though, with a logic in the (abstract) graphical design, and each of them can be drawn in a single pen stroke. They have found their way into some fonts (http://www.linguistsoftware.com/linup.htm#Kaktovik), and has some support form the Inuit Circumpolar Council (http://inuitcircumpolar.com/section.php?Nav=SectionID=10Lang=En). /Kent K The (undemonstrated) use of the notation denoting hands for which I suggested a combining diacritic could be handled by ligatures specified by ZWJ, but there could be a lot of them. Look at the ugly mess in New Tai Lue caused by not anticipating the need for medial 'v' because the UTC knew too little about Tai Lue (or even, more surprisingly, Northern Thai). Richard.
Re: Kaktovik Inupiaq numerals
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:50:15 -0700 Ken Whistler k...@sybase.com wrote: On 4/27/2012 10:45 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote: If they are to be adopted by the CLDR, the digits need to be coded consecutively. I doubt this matters in any case, because this proposed use is for a vigesimal system, which has digits 0..19, not digits 0..9. Trying to treat the first 10 digits as decimal digits in CLDR could accomplish nothing, IMO. I don't believe the exclusion of non-decimal bases is set in stone. So, while they wouldn't fit in to CLDR as it stands now, it would not take a huge change to add them. Furthermore, what Inuit has is a vigesimal *counting* system, as the article indicates. But this innovated set of numerals, is attempting to turn this into a full-blown radix-20 numerical system, which I doubt has any cultural validity. I presume you are talking about how the hundreds are (or were) traditionally expressed. The Inuit number system is another case of the rather widespread use of mixed 5/20 counting systems, which count 4 hands of 5 into groups of 20. Indeed, it immediately made me think of Welsh, where native-speakers' use of their vigesimal system has been hammered by the use of Arabic numerals. (In England, resistance to this 'heathen notation' collapsed long ago.) Before anyone points it out, I do know that Welsh _pymtheg_ '15' and possibly even _ugain_ '20' ultimately derive from a (superseded) decimal system. However, Welsh goes decimal at 100, so this vigesimal notation would not match the language at all for higher numbers. I don't think combining diacritics makes sense in this case. Rather, this kind of construction is better handled by taking the graphic elements for 5, 10, and 15, and ligating them in a font for the combined units. So the only elements requiring encoding would be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, in order to fully represent this system. No. One must be able to distinguish ONE, FIVE (= '25') and FIVE, ONE (= '101') from the notation for '6'. Or are you suggesting that rendering of ZWJ should be *essential* for the semantics, not just for acceptability? The (undemonstrated) use of the notation denoting hands for which I suggested a combining diacritic could be handled by ligatures specified by ZWJ, but there could be a lot of them. Look at the ugly mess in New Tai Lue caused by not anticipating the need for medial 'v' because the UTC knew too little about Tai Lue (or even, more surprisingly, Northern Thai). Richard.
Re: Kaktovik Inupiaq numerals
David Starner prosfilaes at gmail dot com wrote: I don't see these on the list of proposed scripts or on the roadmap, but Wikipedia*, citing a newsletter of the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative**, that there is now a Inupaiq numeral system supporting a vigesimal counting system. The proposal seems trivial, except for the minor problem of establishing sufficient use to justify encoding. I propose columns 1C8x and 1C9x for encoding; if they have seen use, it certainly has been modern. I suppose it's more likely to get sent to the SMP, if it does get encoded. The problem of establishing sufficient use will have to rely on more than the Wikipedia article, which uses unquantified and uncited expressions like has gained wide use and is slowly gaining ground and has helped to revive counting in Inuit. Even for 20 symbols, the committees will likely want stronger evidence than this. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
Re: Kaktovik Inupiaq numerals
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:32:09 -0700 David Starner prosfil...@gmail.com wrote: The proposal seems trivial, except for the minor problem of establishing sufficient use to justify encoding. If they are to be adopted by the CLDR, the digits need to be coded consecutively. However, the symbols for '5', '10' and '15' do invite interpretation as combining diacritics. Decompositions would have to be encoded from the very beginning - they cannot be added in a later standard. Richard.
Re: Kaktovik Inupiaq numerals
On 4/27/2012 10:45 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote: If they are to be adopted by the CLDR, the digits need to be coded consecutively. I doubt this matters in any case, because this proposed use is for a vigesimal system, which has digits 0..19, not digits 0..9. Trying to treat the first 10 digits as decimal digits in CLDR could accomplish nothing, IMO. Furthermore, what Inuit has is a vigesimal *counting* system, as the article indicates. But this innovated set of numerals, is attempting to turn this into a full-blown radix-20 numerical system, which I doubt has any cultural validity. The Inuit number system is another case of the rather widespread use of mixed 5/20 counting systems, which count 4 hands of 5 into groups of 20. Recognition of the hands as sub-bases is the reason for the graphological construction of the numbers seen in the Kaktovik Inupiaq students' system. And even if the hurdle of usage is surmounted, so that a character encoding would be appropriate, I don't think combining diacritics makes sense in this case. Rather, this kind of construction is better handled by taking the graphic elements for 5, 10, and 15, and ligating them in a font for the combined units. So the only elements requiring encoding would be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, in order to fully represent this system. --Ken However, the symbols for '5', '10' and '15' do invite interpretation as combining diacritics. Decompositions would have to be encoded from the very beginning - they cannot be added in a later standard.
Kaktovik Inupiaq numerals
I don't see these on the list of proposed scripts or on the roadmap, but Wikipedia*, citing a newsletter of the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative**, that there is now a Inupaiq numeral system supporting a vigesimal counting system. The proposal seems trivial, except for the minor problem of establishing sufficient use to justify encoding. I propose columns 1C8x and 1C9x for encoding; if they have seen use, it certainly has been modern. I suppose it's more likely to get sent to the SMP, if it does get encoded. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_numerals ** http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/SOP/SOPv2i1.html -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
