Re: EAK numerals

On 5/26/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> > An obvious (to me) thing would be to use the numbers -- which are
> > derived from a combining form anyway -- and make compounds with kónta
> > (which could be a bound morpheme, if you'd like), thus: duókonta,
> > triákonta, tetrákonta, pentákonta, eksákonta, eptákonta, oktákonta,
> > enneákonta (some accents moving so that they are not more than three
> > syllables from the end).
>
> Yes, that's a possibility. But then, why not also _enókonta_ for 10?
Good question; hadn't thought of that.

One argument for keeping a _déka_ is that more common words tend to be
more likely to resist analogy and keep "irregular" forms; 10, as the
number of fingers and toes, and as the base of the number system,
would seem an obvious candidate.

But the regularisation is slightly alluring.

> If on the other hand, we keep _déka_ for 10, should we not also keep
> _eíkosa_ for 20?
And regularise only 30-90? That could work, too.

> If we have these forms for the 10s, should we not consider retaining
> something akin to the AG forms for hundreds? In that language we find
> (in the Romanization I've been using foe EAK examples):
> diakósioi = 200
> triakósioi = 300
> tetrakósioi = 400
> pentakósioi = 500
> eksakósioi = 600
> eptakósioi = 700
> oktakósioi = 800
> enakósioi = 900
>
> These are all given in the masc. plural nominative. To turn them into
> acceptable EAK forms, all we need do for most is to drop the final -i.
> We then have only to change 200 to _duokósio_ and 900 to _enneakósio_.
(The second change was indeed made in Modern Greek, presumably by
analogy -- 900 is _enneakósioi_.)

> So again I have to consider if _enokósio_ should not be the word for 100.
Interesting question.

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

Reply