Re: Telona number system

Jonathan Knibb wrote:


  I didn't mention it before, but the normal way
> of expressing numbers over about eighty is to use a translation of the
> decimal system.  For example, to say 'One thousand, nine hundred and
> eighteen students entered the university this year.' one would use an
> expression corresponding to 'ten ten ten plus nine ten ten plus nine
> two'.....
NO NO!!!! COP-OUT!!! ;-) At the least, maybe you could have them discover
cubing (ede+pen??).  And I guess I'd allow simpler constructions for 200,
300...1000, 2000--
[tha ede] ala or _maybe_ ra {tha ede}; tha {cubed}, ra [tha {cubed}]???
After all, I guess it's a little time-consuming to figure out what prime(s)
make up 1729 (is there an easy way?).  But I'd bet that priests/scientists
would go to the trouble in their formal writings

 As I said, I'm somewhat math-challenged, though I find things like primes,
the series of perfect squares, Fibonacci series etc. quite interesting.)

ObConlang. 1. In Kash, primes are called epikalap, a compd meaning
"pure/virginal number".  They also like Fibonacci numbers--hmm, poetry of
alternating 8/5 syll. lines, or better13/21 since they're rather
long-winded....
2. In Gwr, the largest number named is 1000, chih.  Million is chih maq,
lit. 1000 vast, but maq here means 'multiplied by itself'; (US) billion
(thousand million) is chih maq 2 (1000^2), then chih maq 3 (1000^3) and so
on.




while to say 'In the year nineteen eighteen the armistice was
> declared.', the traditional expression could be used.
>
> Roger Mills wrote:
> > One thing that puzzled me, is that the number names could be
> > somewhat variable-- e.g. 36 is 9*4.  But could it also be 6^2? or
> > 18*2, or why not 12*3, since 24 is 12*2 and 48 is 12*4 (why not 6*4,
> > 6*8 resp. for these???).
>
> I'll address this in my full post (when I get round to it).  There are
> reasons!
>
> > I think the people who speak this language
> > must be mathematical geniuses, and preoccupied with prime numbers--
> > who else could figure out that 1918 could be described as a multiple
> > of 7*2 *{ru 17*4}.  To me, that's perverse/devilish brain-wiring
> > :-)) and quite fascinating.
>
> Even if I am to be forced into conculturing :), I'm afraid that I'd
> envisage a much more boring state of affairs.  As I said above, the
> traditional system would only be used for large numbers when the
> meaning would be clear and no-one would have to go and look anything
> up.  <flight of fantasy> ... although the idea of a race with hard-
> wired networks of neurones dedicated to performing quantum
> computations to factorise large numbers in polynomial time - now that
> sounds interesting ... </fof>  (If anyone thinks they might want to
> use that idea as the basis of some sort of sci-fi literature - take
> it.  It's yours. ;-)))) )
>
> > And now that I think of it-- "one" was not used at all in the
> > multiples (obviously, since *1 is trivial); it's only occurrence
> > must be in statements like "I  want to buy (just) one...X".  The
> > vocabulary could probably be tinkered with so as to eliminate the
> > word entirely.
>
> Except that Telona doesn't have anything like articles, or even a
> grammatical singular-plural distinction, so the word 'one' (or rather
> a group of words with related singular meanings) is pretty crucial.
> But the point is valid.
>
> > Another thing I wonder about-- if they have separate symbols for
> > numbers [...]
>
> Oh, a long, long way off for now, my friend. :)
>
> And finally, Mike Ellis wrote:
> >> And now that I think of it-- "one" was not used at all [...] The
> >> vocabulary could probably be tinkered with so as to eliminate the
> >> word entirely.
> >
> > ru zero!
>
> That has a kind of perfect, crystalline beauty which touches me deeply
> ... afraid I won't be using it, though. ;)
>
> Jonathan.
>
> [reply to jonathan underscore knibb at hotmail dot com]
> ===
> 'O dear white children casual as birds,
> Playing among the ruined languages...'
> Auden/Britten, 'Hymn to St. Cecilia'