Re: numeration system

The thread seems to have split into two - I'll stick strictly to the
original thread here.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2004, at 09:02 , # 1 wrote:

> 0 zo
> 1 ko
> 2 no
> 3 mo
> 4 lo
> 5 vo
> 6 fo
> 7 bo
> 8 go
> 9 po
>
>
> I don't think there is a problem with the similarities of the numers:
There is, for the reasons tht several of us - quite independently - have
stated. If the language is to remain merely written, then OK - but if you
want to imagine that your conlang will be spoken, it just ain't going to
work, because....

as JC wrote on Wednesday, December 15, 2004, at 09:24:
[snip]
> Have you ever tried to spell anything to someone in
> English? Especially over the telephone. Say, for
> example, "bat".
>
> You: "b, a, t".
> Me: "Was that "p"?
> You: "No, b as in boy, a as in apple, t as is top."
>
> The problem, especially if there's background noise of
> some sort, is that the consonants are easily confused.
Quite so - and if the vowel is the same for them all, there is nothing
else to help,

> I don't think I've ever had a problem with numbers,
> though as someone mentioned nine and five have similar
> vowels. The f and v are enough to distinguish them for
> the most part, though.
Yes, modern technology has improved things; it is only if the line is bad
or there is a lot of background noise the problem can arise. Then it is
usually solved by emphasing the final consonant in some as I outlined or
John Cowan outlined.

> With your system I can see this:
>
> Me: My number is no no mo fo vo...
> You: Wait, was that no or mo?
Yes, so can I! "Er, was that fo or vo" assuming the other person had the
patience to continue the exchange  :)
==============================================

On Wednesday, December 15, 2004, at 09:29 , # 1 wrote:

> OK I'll repeat my system because there were a mistake and NOBODY seems to
> have understood it.
>
> The vowel tells 10, 100, 1.000, 10.000 etc. it is between the two
> consonants
> (kOko, nAno, nEno) but 1 is represented by no vowel.
>
> And the consonants tell the number witch with we multiply the power of 10
Um - to say that NOBODY understood it is IMO a slight overstatement.
"The vowel tells 10, 100, 1.000, 10.000"
"And the consonants tell the number witch with we multiply the power of 10"

In what way are these two concepts different from the system proposed by
Leibniz which I outlined in my mail of 15th Dec.? The only difference is
that you & he have implemented these two concepts differently.

>
>
> 0 zo
>
> 1 ko  (no vowel between another: 1, k: 1 -> 1*1 = 1)
> 2 no  (no vowel between another: 1, n: 2 -> 1*2 = 2)
> 3 mo
> 4 lo
> 5 vo
> 6 fo
> 7 bo
> 8 go
> 9 po
>
> 10 koko       ("o" (between the "k's") for 10 and k for 1 -> 10*1 = 10)
Which raises Gary's problem: How, in telephone call, do I tell the
difference between _koko_ (10) and _ko ko_ (22)? There are different
conventions when giving numbers over the phone. You seem to be intent on
building potential confusion into your system.

[snip]
> 100 kako
> 101 kako ko
> 120 kako nono
> 237 nano momo bo
Also your system is simply not being consistent in itself! you say, and I
quote:
"The vowel tells 10, 100, 1.000, 10.000 etc. it is between the two
consonants (kOko, nAno, nEno) but 1 is represented by no vowel."

In that case 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. should be kko, nno, mmo, llo etc. In a later
post you seem insistent that geminate consonant _must_  be used. I quote:
On Wednesday, December 15, 2004, at 10:09 , # 1 wrote:
>>> I tought about the possibility of cut the last "o" of the word that are
>>> not
>>> at the end of the number
>>>
>>> 9   po
>>> 10 koko
>>> 11 kok ko
>>> 12 kok no
>>
>> Bad idea - telling "koko" from "kok ko" is too difficult and becomes
>> absolutely impossible if spoken somewhat faster.
>
> it is the "o" at the end of "koko" that is taken out not the "k"
>
> "kok ko" must have two distinc "k's" "koK ko": you HAVE to pronounce it!
Presumably you mean /kokko/ - the /k/ has to be doubled (geminated) - yu
emphasize the point.

> it is sure that when you cut letters you will not understand the meaning
>
> 1, 1 is "ko ko"
> 10 is "koko"
> 11 is "kok ko"
It will not work, full-stop/period! Now back to #1's mail of 9:29 on that
day:

[snip]
> "z" is used only for de zero
In both your system & Leibniz's 0 does not neatly fit in. In this respect
I think Kolovrat's system, which has certain similarities in basic
concepts to those of #1 and Leibniz, is superior.

> These are cardinal numbers they end in -o  (lo: four)
> ordinal numbers change the -o in -i            (li: fourth)
> collective: -a
> distributive: -e
> fractions: -e`                                          (le: quarter)
> multiplicatives: -u
My own personal opinion is that using the same vowels to denote quite
distinct morphemes does not enhance your system.
=========================================

> On Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 01:54 , And Rosta wrote:
>
> Pascal A. Kramm writes:
[snip]
>> Very bad, it will not work at all like this.
>> Reason is, the numbers are WAY too similar to each other.
[snip]
> I disagree with Pascal and the others making a similar response.
> It is a problem to have words with similar sound and similar meaning
> only when the channel is acoustic and in some way degraded.
But in real life that is so often the situation.

> If I were M. 1 (or a proponent of one of the other schemes Ray mentioned
> in his response), then, I would merely add alternative forms for the
> numbers (like zwo, niner, alpha, bravo, charlie, etc.) for use when
> communication is over a degraded acoustic channel.
But in #1's scheme it seems to me that you have give alternatives for
practically everything. I can see little point in having what will
virtually be a parallel system.
===============================================
On Wednesday, December 15, 2004, at 09:37 , John Cowan wrote:
[snip]
> The Lojban digits were carefully engineered:  pa, re, ci, vo, mu, xa,
> ze, bi, so; zero is no.  Note the distinct consonants and the mnemonic
> pattern of the vowels.
This sort of solution seems to me much better if one is going to have CV
syllables. Tho it seems strictly speaking #1's system is CvC where both Cs
are the same, tho the units certainly give the appearance of CV.
==============================================

Finally may I give #1 a little word of advice? I mean to be _HELPFUL_ in
doing so.

In you first mail on 14th Dec. you wrote:
"I invented a numeration system with my conlang and I would like you to
check if it works."

Instead of ignoring your mail, we have read it and taken the trouble to
reply. You asked us to check out if it works. Several of us have
independently replied with reasons why we think it will not work.

But your responses have been very defensive and then to say that NOBODY
has understood you is not going to win you friends.

I have been on this list for several yeas now. When I put ideas to the
list, then I expect some criticism - nothing is perfect. Indeed, the
responses I find _least helpful_ are those where there is either no
response or the response is "Cool - I like it!"  (What is it that is liked?
)

In my experience we gain more by taking on board what people say and at
least considering it. We may not agree with it all - but we do at least
consider it and it helps us to come to a better understanding of what we
are doing.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]