Re: Ebisedian number system (I)
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, July 18, 2002, 19:23|
On Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 08:21 , JS Bangs wrote:
> Steg Belsky sikyal:
>> Well, Hebrew (and Arabic, if i remember correctly) multiples of 10 are
>> plural in form:
>> 20 `esrim
>> 30 sheloshim
>> 40 arba`im
>> 50 hhamishim
>> with the |-im| masculine plural ending.
> Is this like the Romanian practice of writing "30" (for example) as
> _treizeci_ "three tens" ? That's clearly something else. I don't know
> Hebrew, but trying to parse the forms it doesn't look like it.
No, it isn't. The Hebrew forms literally mean: tens, threes, fours,
Volapük also formed it tens like this but, unlike Hebrew, Arabic etc, 20
was 'twos' and
ten itself was 'ones', thus:
1 bal 10 bals
2 tel 20 tels
3 kil 30 kils
4 fol 40 fols
I say 'formed', since in 1931 revision of Arie de Jong this was abandoned.
10 became 'deg';
20, 30 etc became 'teldeg', 'kildeg' etc.
>> Also, the Hebrew and Arabic words for "2" are dual: |shtayim| (-ayim) and
>> |ithnaan| (-aan/-ayn), respectively.
> Actually, this is also true in Greek, so I should have mentioned this as
> common exception.
It was true in the oldest IE languages. But even in Classical Greek it
treated as indeclinable and noun following it was (almost) always plural,
In all post-classical forms of the Greek it has remained indeclinable,
three & four which are still declined in modern Greek.
The Latin _duo_ perpetuates the old IE dual and its declension was a
of dual & plural forms. One other word was declined the same way:
_ambo_ = "both".