Re: EAK numerals

Philip Newton wrote:
> On 5/26/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>
>> Philip Newton wrote:
[TENS]
>> > 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.
But in fact it brings us back to where we started. The criticism
sometimes level at Esperanto is that forms like _tri dek_ (30), _kvar
dek_ (40) etc. could be misunderstood by people like Germans, who have
_dreizehn_ (three-ten = 13), vierzehn (four-ten = 14) etc., and others
whose L1a behave similarly. It was for that reason that, e.g. Novial has
the suffix -anti to form 10s from _duanti_ (20) to _ninanti_ (90), but
not *unanti (10).

But if _enókonta_ were adopted, we would have, in effect, _enókonta_
(one-ten = 10), _duókonta_ (two-ten = 20), _triákonta_ (three-ten = 30),
_tetrákonta_ (four-ten = 40) etc. So why not keep _déka_ rather than
coin the bound morpheme -konta?

> 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.
It most certainly would!

> But the regularisation is slightly alluring.
It is, but I think 'twould be better done if we keep _déka_.

>> 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.
It could work, and would be better IMO than extending -konta to 10-90,
BUT....

 From what I can tell Latino sine Flexione does have _viginti_ (20),
_triginta, quadraginta, quinquaginta, sexaginta, septuaginta, octoginta,
nonaginta_ but also allows analytical forms like _duo decem_ (20), _tres
decem_ (30) etc.  I get the impression that the analytical forms are to
be preferred.

Also, while Italian, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese and (for the most
part) French have forms derived from the Latin _viginti, triginta_ etc.,
Romanian has developed analytical forms: du@zeci, treizeci, patruzeci
(20, 30, 40) etc, where _zeci_ is the plural of _zece_ (10) [@ is for
a-breve].

It may be objected that _dúo déka_ (20) would be too similar to the
ancient & modern Greek _dódeka_ (12). But it may be worth noting that in
Welsh we have a traditional method of counting vigesimally (more or
less) up to 99, besides the modern, strictly decimal system. The
traditional method is now restricted to telling the time, and giving
one's age up to about 30. In most situations the modern method is used.
But the Welsh seem quite able to cope with the similar sounding (but
*not* homophonous) _deuddeg_ (12) of the traditional system, and _dau
ddeg_ (20) of the modern system. Therefore, I see no reason why we cant
cope with EAK _dúo déka_ (20) and Greek _dódeka_ (12).

Also IMO the criticism of Esperanto given above insults the intelligence
of Germans and others. Presumably Germans who learn Mandarin get used to
to er4shi2, san1shi2 etc.

Also, rather like the Malay-Indonesian sa-/ satu = 1, I am adopting EAK
e-/ enó = 1. Therefore, the EAK numerals from 10 to 99 are formed thus:
e-déka = 10; e-déka enó = 11; e-déka dúo = 12; e-déka tría = 13 etc.
dúo déka = 20; dúo déka tétra = 24; dúo déka pénta = 25 etc.
tría déka = 30, tétra déka = 40 etc. up to _ennéa déka ennéa_ = 99.

[HUNDREDS]
>> 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_.)
Yes, it must be. It's not found in the ancient language.

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

The ancient Greek for 100 was _(h)ekatón_ but in the compounding form
varies between (h)ekaton- (with assimilation of nasal to /N/ or /m/
where appropriate, and (h)ekatonta-. None of these compounds occur in
any English word, except _hecatomb_ (<--- hecatom-bè) 'a great public
sacrifice; any large number of victims' (the Greek word meant 'an
offering of 100 oxen'). In fact the most commonly occurring modern
prefix derived from the AG word is _hecto-_ which resulted from the
mangling of the Greek word by the French revolutionaries!

Therefore, I see no strong reason to retain either _ekató_ or _ekatónta_
in EAK. But as the accent always falls on the first syllable of -kósio,
I propose adopting _kósio_ as the word for x100. The EAK hundreds will,
therefore, be:
e-kósio, dúo kósio, tría kósio .... ennéa kósio.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]

Reply