Re: Cardinals and ordinals
| From: | Roger Mills <romilly@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, September 12, 2003, 18:17 |
|---|
Isadora Zamora wrote:
(re cardinal/ordinal numbers)
....there is an irregularity in
> some of the early ordinal numerals. The ordinals are generally derived
> from the cardinals by a regular process (in the case of English, by adding
> -th), but the first few seem not to be derived at all or are derived
> irregularly. (English "third" is derived irregularly and "first" and
> "second" appear not to be derived at all from the corresponding
> cardinals. >
> How widespread is this phenomenon?
I can only add one other non-IE language-- Indonesian. The word for 'first'
is not related to 'one' (resp. pertama < Skt., satu; not exactly certain
what "pertama" meant in Skt.). Everything is regular after that (prefix
k@-). Some other languages in the family also have an irreg. word for first,
regular thereafter.
It's interesting that Span/Port/Ital. preserve the Latin ordinals, even for
the teens and decades (and so the forms aren't visibly derived from the
cardinals) whereas French, aside from premier(e), is regular in
adding -ième. Does _seconde_ exist as an alternative to deuxième?
Span. primero, segundo, tercero, cuarto, quinto, sesto, séptimo, octavo
(alternative ocheno IIRC???), noveno~nono, décimo.....
décimo quinto 15th vs. quince
décimo octavo 18th vs. diez y ocho ~dieciocho (???) etc.
vigésimo 20th vs. veinte
cuadrigésimo 40th vs. cuarenta etc.
Reply