Speaking in Tongues: Another Addendum Jeff Zeitlin (13 Jun 2021 19:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Speaking in Tongues: Another Addendum
Timothy Collinson
(18 Jun 2021 08:33 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Speaking in Tongues: Another Addendum
Jeff Zeitlin
(18 Jun 2021 23:00 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Speaking in Tongues: Another Addendum
Timothy Collinson
(21 Jun 2021 22:17 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Speaking in Tongues: Another Addendum
Phil Pugliese
(21 Jun 2021 22:42 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Speaking in Tongues: Another Addendum
Timothy Collinson
(22 Jun 2021 12:36 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Speaking in Tongues: Another Addendum
James Catchpole
(22 Jun 2021 13:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Speaking in Tongues: Another Addendum
Phil Pugliese
(22 Jun 2021 13:59 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Speaking in Tongues: Another Addendum
Phil Pugliese
(22 Jun 2021 13:54 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Speaking in Tongues:AnotherAddendum
Jonathan Clark
(23 Jun 2021 04:29 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Speaking in Tongues:AnotherAddendum
Phil Pugliese
(23 Jun 2021 13:58 UTC)
|
In addition to everything else that I've said on the subject, in both the original article and my addendum on holophrasis posted here on 23 May, one can also look at numbers differently. Most numbering is done with a base of ten in ordinary usage, but there's vestiges and evidence of other bases being used in some contexts. Let's stick with ten-based numeration, though. We have names for various powers of ten: the first power is ten itself, the second is "hundred", the third is "thousand" and then different societies may work the additional names differently. At present on Earth, there are three main systems for naming those larger numbers in English (all three agree up to "thousand"). Conventionally, they are called the "short system" (used principally in North America), the "long system" (formerly used principally in Europe and former British colonial possessions, but due to US influence, is gradually being abandoned in favor of the short system) and the "Indian system" (used principally on the Indian subcontinent, alongside both the long and short systems). In the "short system", after "thousand", each new name comes with the third power of ten following: sixth is "million", ninth is "billion", twelfth is "trillion", and so on. On any one planet, it would be unlikely to see short system "quadrillion" (fifteenth power) used, even for budget numbers in credits (local currencies may be a different matter), but at the Imperial level, one might even see "quintillion" (eightteenth power) or even "sextillion" (twenty-first power). In the "long system", the same new names are used, with the sixth power still being called "million", but after that, they come with each _sixth_ power of ten - "billion" is the twelfth power, "trillion" is the eightteenth power, and so on. Some usages admit third-power modifications of the previous names, substituting "-iard" for "-ion" - "milliard" for ninth power, based on "million", for example - but those usages are comparatively rare, and the intermediate third powers are generally just called "thousand x", where x is the previous name - "thousand million" rather than "milliard", "thousand billion" rather than "billiard", etc. The Indian system comes up with new names more often: instead of every _third_ power of ten after "thousand", Indian names occur after every _second_ power of ten (and when writing the numbers, the comma occurs every second position to the left of the thousands comma). The fifth power is "lakh", the seventh is "crore", and there are other, less-commonly-used names beyond that (it's normal to see "lakh" and "crore" combined; the twelfth power [short system "trillion"] is "lakh crore"). Briefly venturing away from base ten, we find vestiges of base twelve in the terms "dozen" and "gross", representing the first two powers of twelve. The term "score" comes indirectly from base-twenty usage (and modern French continues to have vestiges of this; numbers larger than twenty are described as x-twenties-plus-y). MesoAmerican numbers were written in a mixed-base system, using five and twenty as the two bases. The pre-decimalization Pound Sterling was divided using bases twenty (twenty shillings per pound) and twelve (twelve pence per shilling) both. One can also use a partially subtractive system, instead of a purely additive system: written Roman numerals use this model; one normally does not write "five plus four ones" (VIIII) for "nine"; instead, it's "one less than ten" (IX). The Roman system only admitted subtracting one instance of the previous power of ten from a number; one conventionally wrote "ninety-nine" as "XCIX" (ten less than one-hundred, plus one less than ten) rather than "IC" (one less than one-hundred). One can use any of these to give the sort of foreign flavor discussed in the original article, without impairing understandability significantly - but they can still be enough to cause the sort of difficulty that comes with making wrong assumptions... ®Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2020. Use of the trademark in this notice and in the referenced materials is not intended to infringe or devalue the trademark. -- Jeff Zeitlin, Editor Freelance Traveller The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com http://www.freelancetraveller.com Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following enterprises for hosting services: onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io) The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)