Re: Zero-ness
| From: | BP Jonsson <bpj@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, August 13, 2000, 17:55 |
|---|
At 04:16 13.8.2000 -0500, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> > What is your problem with "nullar", if any? It seems well formed in Latin
> > and English.
>
>I don't actually have a problem with "nullar". All the terms put forward
>so far seem a bit awkward to me, but perhaps this is mostly just a result
>of never having used a term for something like this before. I don't like
>"nihilar" since it seems to suggest the lack of an object rather than an
>abstract number which represents lack, period; nor do I find any of the
>others particularly attractive. I guess "nullar" wins by default.
To me, knowing Latin, it seems to be implicitly present alredy in the
series {..singular,dual,trial..plural..(universal?)}. Ray seems to agree.
/BP 8^)>
--
B.Philip Jonsson mailto:bpX@netg.se mailto:melrochX@mail.com (delete X)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Truth, Sir, is a cow which will give [skeptics] no more milk,
and so they are gone to milk the bull."
-- Sam. Johnson (no rel. ;)