Re: Types of numerals; bases in natlangs.

Henrik Theiling wrote:
>John Vertical <johnvertical@...> writes:
> > Henrik Theiling wrote:
> > >No, the exponent defaults to one.
> >
> > Really? So kjox ling ling ling = 11.1??
>
>Exactly! :-)
>
>Not-so-math-aware people will probably use a separating 'wng' to
>re-sync the exponent at the decimal point, I suppose...
Huh. I'd've expected to have by defaut all digits whole. And I realize that
for that, I should have suggested "number of digits *minus one*" instead...


> > >If the base is not agreed on, the first used base must be in the long
> > >form, using the verb 'to take the power of' explicitly.  This verb is
> > >'il':
> > >
> > >     kul il kjok == 10^2 = 100
> >
> > Ah, so numbers are phonemically different when used as a base and when
> > used as a digit?? That definitely clears the system up a lot.
>
>Phonemically?  What?  Any word is pronounced exactly the same.  'il'
>is another word that is usually dropped.
So why is "10" then "kjok" and not "kjox" there? Just a typo?


>In normal human life, there are situation
>when other bases that ten are used, so I introduced them.  Currently,
>the language has numbers up to sixteen, and for telling the time (ie.,
>quite a common situation not overly technical), they are indeed used
>up to sixteen.
>**Henrik
IMO that sounds like putting the cart before the horse... there's little
reason, besides convention, to use a different base for counting time (at
least in the h/min/sec range). I guess 10 = number of fingers is sorta
logical, but if you want a binary base too for working with data, it's also
possible to count in binary with fingers - 10 fingers happens to stretch up
to exactly 1024, whatever the name.
And even if you want to stay with the existing conventions, I don't
understand why you'd need the ability to use just about any number as base.
Or is it just generalization?

John Vertical

Reply