Re: Number systems (was: Picto & Dil)

Got a bit delayed in replying to this - and now we have another thread
called 'number system' as well   :)

On Friday, April 22, 2005, at 03:04 , Henrik Theiling wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Ray Brown writes in response to me:
[snip]

>> ...
>> So if 'nine ten one two three four five six seven eight nine' =
>> 1.23456789e9, then do we just say (with direct translation) 'five ten one
>> two three four five six seven eight nine' to denote 1.23456789e5, thus
>> eliminating any need for a Tyl Sjok word for point/decimal/comma?
>
> This would be done in the scientific world, but it is one of the
> things I find a bit unnatural in daily life, I think.  Maybe with
> fixed things like units of money, this would happen.
>
> In normal speech, you'd split the number into two parts and link them
> with 'add':
>
>   5 10 1 2 3 4 5 + - 1 10 6 7 8 9
Aw - I think it's more elegant without the splitting and the +

It occurs to me that the initial two numbers are normally going to be
redundant. The number of digits between the 10 and either the end of the
number (if an integer) or the + will be the same as that denoted by the
number in front of the 10, except ...

> What's common is abbreviation, however, e.g.:
>
>   5000 = 3 10 5
>
> And the above 'add' is also used to skip a lot of zeros:
>
>   500002 = 6 10 5 + 2
OK - then the initial exponent is useful.

[snip]
>> Ooh - but they would IME - it's surprising the number of adults, in the
>> UK
>> at least, that just have a mental block when it comes to anything
>> unfamiliar with numbers. It would be those brought up with the new system
>> that might find it easier, but......
>
> Yeah, sure, same mental block in this country. :-) But for natives in
> Tyl Sjok and Qthyng|ai, this would be their everyday system.  They'd
> not have to learn a second one for maths.
But if it's their everyday system they might cope with
5 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9      :)

[snip]
>> ...
>> I guess not either. But it must be easier than working with a mile of
>> 1760
>> yards or 5280 feet  :)
>
> Ough!  That's no good for a metrical person like me. :-)
>
> Anyway, more on the Tyl Sjok system -- you asked, at least
> implicitly. :-) Any I think the gory details of the following are not
> on the list yet (maybe some bits):
>
> I've included inches and times in the Tyl Sjok system: it can handle
> 'strange' units.  This is actually the second layer: you'd treat the
> super-units of a base unit as exponents and keep the same syntax as
> with numbers.  If the multiples are > 16, you have to introduce an
> intermediate unit step:
>
>     (1) second     = second
>     2 second       = 15 seconds
>     3 second       = minute
>     4 second       = 15 minutes
>     5 second       = hour
>     6 second       = half a day
>     7 second       = day
>     8 second       = week
>     9 second       = month
>    10 second       = year
That I do find confusing   :)

> The range of the exponent is valid where the unit is multiplied
> irregularly, so below 1 seconds, you'd use decimal again and above a
> year, you'd also use decimal again.  Also note that you count from 0,
> not from one: just like after 9 comes 10, after, January 30 comes
> February 0.  This may be confusing when learning Tyl Sjok, I
> admit... :-))))
Yep!

[snip]
> Ah, yes: the base by which the smalles unit divides is lexicalised,
> because for m, it is probably 10, but for inches, it is probably 2:
Why? I know our school rulers were regularly marked in either 8ths of
inches or 16ths or 32nds. But engineers regulars worked with 'thous',
plural of 'thou' /Taw/ = 1 thousandth of an inch; and British shoe sizes
are done by 'barleycorns', there being three barleycorns to an inch   :)

>    meter 2 1     = 2.1 meters
>    meter 2 1 1   = 2.1 meters
>    meter 2 1 1 1 = 2.1 meters
>    inch  2 1     = 2 + 1/2 = 2.5 inches
>    inch  2 1 1   = 2 + 3/4 = 2.75 inches
>    inch  2 1 1 1 = 2 + 7/8 = 2.825 inches
But what about the super-units of 'inch'? I suppose, on the analogy of
'second' above, we would have:
(1) inch = inch
2 inch   = foot (12 inches)
3 inch   = yard (3 feet)
4 inch   = rod _or_ pole_ (5.5 yards)
5 inch   = chain (4 poles)
6 inch   = furlong (10 chains)
7 inch   = mile (8 furlongs)

     :-)

[snip]

>>>> and that might suggest keeping a similar system in an auxlang - but
>>>> I'll leave that to that other list ;)
>>>
>>> Right -- may this be discussed in that place! :-)
>>
>> They actually _discuss_ things there now, do they (just kidding  :)
>
> :-))  I don't know -- I've never been there.  They used to only shout?
Asbestos suits were useful  ;)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]