Re: EAK numerals
| From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, May 21, 2007, 20:49 |
|---|
On 5/21/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> I am undecided about 20, 30, 40 etc. - whether to use analytic forms
> like 'duó déka', 'tría déka etc., or to use forms derived from the
> ancient language, namely: eíkosa, triákonta, tessarákonta, pentêkonta,
> eksêkonta, ebdomêkonta (70), ogdoêkonta, enenêkonta.
>
> In view of the irregularity of the formation of 10x words, I am inclined
> towards the purely analytic forms, despite the criticisms leveled at
> Esperanto's _du dek_, _tri dek_ etc.
Why not, as a compromise, retroactively regularize the ancient forms?
Perhaps adopt -konta as a standard x10 suffix, say with
monophthongization before suffixation, giving something like dukonta,
trikonta, tetrakonta, pentakonta, eksakonta, eptakonta, oktakonta,
ennekonta?
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Reply