On Monday, November 5, 2001, at 09:38 , Patrick Jarrett wrote:
> One thing I have long been working with in my language is number.
> I first wandered from the "accepted" path by adding the nullar number
> suffix, giving me the following endings.
>
> Nullar: -/oU/ :: -w/oU/
> Singular: -- :: --
> Plural: -/I/r :: -r
>
I seem to remember that post from a while back, or else something a lot
like it. :-)
> Next I came up with the idea for emphatic numbers:
>
> Nullar: -/aI/ :: -w/aI/ – translated: absolutely no --
> Singular: -n/oU/ :: -n/oU/ – translated: only one – or the --
> Plural: -/I/n :: -n/I/n - infinite --
>
Quite nice.
> And this weekend I was stirred with the idea of the polar opposite,
> the "incomplete" numbers. That is the working title until I come
> up with a better name.
>
> Nullar: -/i/ :: -w/i/ – Almost none
> Singular minor: -n/i/ :: -n/E/ – Almost whole
> Singular major: -d/U/ :: -d/A/s - Slightly more than whole
> Plural: There is no incomplete number
>
This is a really, really cool idea.
> Now the incomplete nullar is assumed to be greater than zero, and
> the imperfect singular minor is from the low side of whole, or one.
> And the Singular major is from the high side of one, or more than
> complete. And as of now there is no Incomplete Plural.
>
Would mathematicians in this conlang be tempted to extend this to a
description of the real/rational numbers 'twixt other integers? :-)
(I would love to be a mathematician who spoke this language.)
Yoon Ha Lee [requiescat@cityofveils.com]
http://pegasus.cityofveils.com
Shell to DOS...Come in DOS, do you copy? Shell to DOS...