Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A question regarding dictionary entries

Expand Messages
  • Sylvia Sotomayor
    Hi, I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base word, and also
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 31 6:01 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning
      on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base
      word, and also longer definitions for each fully formed and inflected
      word. My question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
      should I gloss 'āllōr' as 32 or 40? It has the functional equivalent
      of 40 in the language, being 8x4, but refers to 32 things.

      Thanks,
      -S

      --
      Sylvia Sotomayor
      terjemar@...
      www.terjemar.net
    • Roger Mills
      ... I d suggest you insert an explanatory comment, like: āllōr forty (base 8 = 32 base 10) That will prevent IMO any confusion/mistakes on the part of the
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 31 8:25 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:

        > Hi,
        >
        > I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning
        > on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base
        > word, and also longer definitions for each fully formed and inflected
        > word. My question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
        > should I gloss 'āllōr' as 32 or 40? It has the functional equivalent
        > of 40 in the language, being 8x4, but refers to 32 things.
        >
        I'd suggest you insert an explanatory comment, like:
        "āllōr forty (base 8 = 32 base 10)"
        That will prevent IMO any confusion/mistakes on the part of the reader.

        I sometimes have the same problem with Gwr, even though they adopted the
        decimal system quite some time ago. But some old ways persist.
      • Alex Fink
        ... I OTOH don t much like calling your number forty . I find it handy to always have ten around to mean the number of dots in .......... even when 10
        Message 3 of 26 , Jul 31 10:56 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Roger Mills wrote:
          >Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
          >
          >> Hi,
          >>
          >> I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning
          >> on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base
          >> word, and also longer definitions for each fully formed and inflected
          >> word. My question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
          >> should I gloss 'āllōr' as 32 or 40? It has the functional equivalent
          >> of 40 in the language, being 8x4, but refers to 32 things.
          >>
          >I'd suggest you insert an explanatory comment, like:
          >"āllōr forty (base 8 = 32 base 10)"
          >That will prevent IMO any confusion/mistakes on the part of the reader.

          I OTOH don't much like calling your number "forty". I find it handy to
          always have "ten" around to mean 'the number of dots in ..........' even
          when "10" can't be relied upon to play that role. And besides,
          "functional
          equivalency" between bases is hardly cut and dried -- who says the
          base-ten
          equivalent of 32_8 isn't 50, also being half the base squared?
          (Probably
          something in the Kelen system says so, actually. But still.)

          I'd gloss your a:llo:r simply as '4*8' or '8x4' or some other variant,
          inserting a comment that this 8 is the base if you deem it necessary.

          Alex
          --
          Alex Fink
          a4pq1injbok_0@...

          --
          http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
        • Benct Philip Jonsson
          ... Do Kelen and/or Gwr speakers have only four fingers, or do they not use their thumbs when counting? I have thought about how octal and duodecimal counting
          Message 4 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Roger Mills skrev:
            > Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
            >
            >> Hi,
            >>
            >> I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and
            >> I am planning on having short glosses (one word, maybe
            >> two) for each stem or base word, and also longer
            >> definitions for each fully formed and inflected word. My
            >> question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
            >> should I gloss 'āllōr' as 32 or 40? It has the
            >> functional equivalent of 40 in the language, being 8x4,
            >> but refers to 32 things.
            >>
            > I'd suggest you insert an explanatory comment, like:
            > "āllōr forty (base 8 = 32 base 10)" That will prevent
            > IMO any confusion/mistakes on the part of the reader.
            >
            > I sometimes have the same problem with Gwr, even though
            > they adopted the decimal system quite some time ago. But
            > some old ways persist.
            >
            >

            Do Kelen and/or Gwr speakers have only four fingers, or do
            they not use their thumbs when counting?

            I have thought about how octal and duodecimal counting may
            arise in a language of five-fingered humans thru either
            not using the thumbs when counting, or adding the palms to
            get six positions on each hand. I winder if there is
            natlang attestation of such systems. The only duodecimal-
            counting human community I know of are type-cutters and
            -setters, allegedly because a base 12 system offers more
            dividends than a base 10 syystem (1 2 3 4 6 12 against
            only (1 2 5 10).

            /BP 8^)>
            --
            Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            "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. ;)
          • Philip Newton
            ... I recently read about a group of people somewhere who count not on their finger(tip)s, but on the spaces between the fingers, therefore also arriving at an
            Message 5 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On 8/1/07, Benct Philip Jonsson <conlang@...> wrote:
              > I have thought about how octal and duodecimal counting may
              > arise in a language of five-fingered humans thru either
              > not using the thumbs when counting, or adding the palms to
              > get six positions on each hand.

              I recently read about a group of people somewhere who count not on
              their finger(tip)s, but on the spaces between the fingers, therefore
              also arriving at an octal system.

              I'm afraid I don't remember further details, though, but I think the
              context was a natlang.

              Cheers,
              --
              Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
            • MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM
              In a message dated 7/31/2007 9:41:45 PM Central Daylight Time, ... I would use both, e.g.: allor - 40 octal (= 32 decimal). stevo
              Message 6 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 7/31/2007 9:41:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
                terjemar@... writes:


                > I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning
                > on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base
                > word, and also longer definitions for each fully formed and inflected
                > word. My question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
                > should I gloss 'allor' as 32 or 40? It has the functional equivalent
                > of 40 in the language, being 8x4, but refers to 32 things.
                >
                > Thanks,
                > -S
                >

                I would use both, e.g.:
                allor - 40 octal (= 32 decimal).

                stevo </HTML>
              • li_sasxsek@nutter.net
                ... How about a system of binary finger combinations. You could get hexadecimal with just four fingers of one hand.
                Message 7 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  > [mailto:CONLANG@...] On Behalf Of Philip Newton

                  > I recently read about a group of people somewhere who count not on
                  > their finger(tip)s, but on the spaces between the fingers, therefore
                  > also arriving at an octal system.

                  How about a system of binary finger combinations. You could get
                  hexadecimal with just four fingers of one hand.
                • Mark J. Reed
                  ... Yes, but you have to have flexible fingers to make some of those combinations. :) My Dankarans use base-6; each hand is one digit. -- Mark J. Reed
                  Message 8 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 8/1/07, li_sasxsek@... <li_sasxsek@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > [mailto:CONLANG@...] On Behalf Of Philip Newton
                    >
                    > > I recently read about a group of people somewhere who count not on
                    > > their finger(tip)s, but on the spaces between the fingers, therefore
                    > > also arriving at an octal system.
                    >
                    > How about a system of binary finger combinations. You could get
                    > hexadecimal with just four fingers of one hand.



                    Yes, but you have to have flexible fingers to make some of those
                    combinations. :)
                    My Dankarans use base-6; each hand is one digit.






                    --
                    Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
                  • John Crowe
                    On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:45:32 +0200, Philip Newton ... I once heard someone s theory of the duodecimal system s origin that said the
                    Message 9 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:45:32 +0200, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                      wrote:

                      >On 8/1/07, Benct Philip Jonsson <conlang@...> wrote:
                      >> I have thought about how octal and duodecimal counting may
                      >> arise in a language of five-fingered humans thru either
                      >> not using the thumbs when counting, or adding the palms to
                      >> get six positions on each hand.
                      >
                      >I recently read about a group of people somewhere who count not on
                      >their finger(tip)s, but on the spaces between the fingers, therefore
                      >also arriving at an octal system.

                      I once heard someone's theory of the duodecimal system's origin that said
                      the segments on the fingers of one hand not including the thumb were
                      counted, arriving at twelve. Numbers would be signed by touching the thumb
                      to the appropriate segment. For example, touching the thumb to the base of
                      the middle finger would mean 6.
                    • Sylvia Sotomayor
                      ... I would certainly explain in the longer definition that this was 40 base 8 (or octal) which is 32 base 10, but for the one word gloss, I m thinking 32
                      Message 10 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 7/31/07, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
                        > Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
                        >
                        > > Hi,
                        > >
                        > > I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning
                        > > on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base
                        > > word, and also longer definitions for each fully formed and inflected
                        > > word. My question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
                        > > should I gloss 'āllōr' as 32 or 40? It has the functional equivalent
                        > > of 40 in the language, being 8x4, but refers to 32 things.
                        > >
                        > I'd suggest you insert an explanatory comment, like:
                        > "āllōr forty (base 8 = 32 base 10)"
                        > That will prevent IMO any confusion/mistakes on the part of the reader.
                        >
                        > I sometimes have the same problem with Gwr, even though they adopted the
                        > decimal system quite some time ago. But some old ways persist.
                        >
                        I would certainly explain in the longer definition that this was 40
                        base 8 (or octal) which is 32 base 10, but for the one word gloss, I'm
                        thinking 32 would be clearer to my mostly English-speaking readers.

                        --
                        Sylvia Sotomayor
                        terjemar@...
                        www.terjemar.net
                      • Sylvia Sotomayor
                        ... Actually, I think I like this. I could gloss it as 4x8, and then in the longer definition explain more fully about it being octal 40 and decimal 32. --
                        Message 11 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 7/31/07, Alex Fink <a4pq1injbok_0@...> wrote:
                          > Roger Mills wrote:
                          > >Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
                          > >
                          > >> Hi,
                          > >>
                          > >> I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning
                          > >> on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base
                          > >> word, and also longer definitions for each fully formed and inflected
                          > >> word. My question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
                          > >> should I gloss 'āllōr' as 32 or 40? It has the functional equivalent
                          > >> of 40 in the language, being 8x4, but refers to 32 things.
                          > >>
                          > >I'd suggest you insert an explanatory comment, like:
                          > >"āllōr forty (base 8 = 32 base 10)"
                          > >That will prevent IMO any confusion/mistakes on the part of the reader.
                          >
                          > I OTOH don't much like calling your number "forty". I find it handy to
                          > always have "ten" around to mean 'the number of dots in ..........' even
                          > when "10" can't be relied upon to play that role. And besides,
                          > "functional
                          > equivalency" between bases is hardly cut and dried -- who says the
                          > base-ten
                          > equivalent of 32_8 isn't 50, also being half the base squared?
                          > (Probably
                          > something in the Kelen system says so, actually. But still.)
                          >
                          > I'd gloss your a:llo:r simply as '4*8' or '8x4' or some other variant,
                          > inserting a comment that this 8 is the base if you deem it necessary.
                          >
                          > Alex
                          > --
                          > Alex Fink
                          > a4pq1injbok_0@...
                          >
                          > --
                          > http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
                          >

                          Actually, I think I like this. I could gloss it as 4x8, and then in
                          the longer definition explain more fully about it being octal 40 and
                          decimal 32.

                          --
                          Sylvia Sotomayor
                          terjemar@...
                          www.terjemar.net
                        • Sylvia Sotomayor
                          ... Yes, octal, decimal. Why does my brain never remember these short succinct words when I need them? :-) -S -- Sylvia Sotomayor terjemar@gmail.com
                          Message 12 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 8/1/07, MorphemeAddict@... <MorphemeAddict@...> wrote:
                            > In a message dated 7/31/2007 9:41:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
                            > terjemar@... writes:
                            >
                            >
                            > > I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning
                            > > on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base
                            > > word, and also longer definitions for each fully formed and inflected
                            > > word. My question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
                            > > should I gloss 'allor' as 32 or 40? It has the functional equivalent
                            > > of 40 in the language, being 8x4, but refers to 32 things.
                            > >
                            > > Thanks,
                            > > -S
                            > >
                            >
                            > I would use both, e.g.:
                            > allor - 40 octal (= 32 decimal).
                            >
                            > stevo </HTML>
                            >

                            Yes, octal, decimal. Why does my brain never remember these short
                            succinct words when I need them? :-)
                            -S
                            --
                            Sylvia Sotomayor
                            terjemar@...
                            www.terjemar.net
                          • Sylvia Sotomayor
                            ... Actually, the Kelen do have only four digits per hand. I m not sure if it s the middle finger and the ring finger that have fused*, or the ring finger and
                            Message 13 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 8/1/07, Benct Philip Jonsson <conlang@...> wrote:
                              > Roger Mills skrev:
                              > > Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
                              > >
                              > >> Hi,
                              > >>
                              > >> I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and
                              > >> I am planning on having short glosses (one word, maybe
                              > >> two) for each stem or base word, and also longer
                              > >> definitions for each fully formed and inflected word. My
                              > >> question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
                              > >> should I gloss 'āllōr' as 32 or 40? It has the
                              > >> functional equivalent of 40 in the language, being 8x4,
                              > >> but refers to 32 things.
                              > >>
                              > > I'd suggest you insert an explanatory comment, like:
                              > > "āllōr forty (base 8 = 32 base 10)" That will prevent
                              > > IMO any confusion/mistakes on the part of the reader.
                              > >
                              > > I sometimes have the same problem with Gwr, even though
                              > > they adopted the decimal system quite some time ago. But
                              > > some old ways persist.
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              > Do Kelen and/or Gwr speakers have only four fingers, or do
                              > they not use their thumbs when counting?
                              >
                              > I have thought about how octal and duodecimal counting may
                              > arise in a language of five-fingered humans thru either
                              > not using the thumbs when counting, or adding the palms to
                              > get six positions on each hand. I winder if there is
                              > natlang attestation of such systems. The only duodecimal-
                              > counting human community I know of are type-cutters and
                              > -setters, allegedly because a base 12 system offers more
                              > dividends than a base 10 syystem (1 2 3 4 6 12 against
                              > only (1 2 5 10).
                              >
                              > /BP 8^)>

                              Actually, the Kelen do have only four digits per hand. I'm not sure if
                              it's the middle finger and the ring finger that have fused*, or the
                              ring finger and the pinky.
                              -S

                              *not necessarily biologically true, though I do posit that the Kelen
                              come originally from human stock.
                              --
                              Sylvia Sotomayor
                              terjemar@...
                              www.terjemar.net
                            • Jörg Rhiemeier
                              Hallo! ... This is basically what the British Elves, who have a duodecimal number system, use. ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                              Message 14 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hallo!

                                On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:23:24 -0400, John Crowe wrote:

                                > I once heard someone's theory of the duodecimal system's origin that said
                                > the segments on the fingers of one hand not including the thumb were
                                > counted, arriving at twelve. Numbers would be signed by touching the thumb
                                > to the appropriate segment. For example, touching the thumb to the base of
                                > the middle finger would mean 6.

                                This is basically what the British Elves, who have a duodecimal number
                                system, use.

                                ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                              • Jörg Rhiemeier
                                Hallo! ... You should gloss it as 32, or better, 4*8, but *not* as 40 because it is a different number. ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                                Message 15 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hallo!

                                  On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:01:45 -0700, Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:

                                  > Hi,
                                  >
                                  > I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning
                                  > on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base
                                  > word, and also longer definitions for each fully formed and inflected
                                  > word. My question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
                                  > should I gloss 'āllōr' as 32 or 40? It has the functional equivalent
                                  > of 40 in the language, being 8x4, but refers to 32 things.

                                  You should gloss it as 32, or better, 4*8, but *not* as 40 because
                                  it is a different number.

                                  ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                                • Sylvia Sotomayor
                                  ... Yes, I think I will gloss it as 4*8, as that has the most info and is the least misleading. Thanks to everyone who gave suggestions. -S -- Sylvia Sotomayor
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 8/1/07, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
                                    > Hallo!
                                    >
                                    > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:01:45 -0700, Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Hi,
                                    > >
                                    > > I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning
                                    > > on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base
                                    > > word, and also longer definitions for each fully formed and inflected
                                    > > word. My question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
                                    > > should I gloss 'āllōr' as 32 or 40? It has the functional equivalent
                                    > > of 40 in the language, being 8x4, but refers to 32 things.
                                    >
                                    > You should gloss it as 32, or better, 4*8, but *not* as 40 because
                                    > it is a different number.
                                    >
                                    > ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                                    >
                                    Yes, I think I will gloss it as 4*8, as that has the most info and is
                                    the least misleading.
                                    Thanks to everyone who gave suggestions.
                                    -S

                                    --
                                    Sylvia Sotomayor
                                    terjemar@...
                                    www.terjemar.net
                                  • David J. Peterson
                                    Sylvia wrote:
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Sylvia wrote:
                                      <<
                                      I would certainly explain in the longer definition that this was 40
                                      base 8 (or octal) which is 32 base 10, but for the one word gloss, I'm
                                      thinking 32 would be clearer to my mostly English-speaking readers.
                                      >>

                                      I would definitely agree, if this dictionary is intended to be seen
                                      by others.

                                      You know what might be neat is a page explaining the number
                                      system, and a little script that would convert from base 10 to base
                                      8. There are tons of sites that have a little script that does that,
                                      e.g.:

                                      http://netzreport.googlepages.com/online_converter_for_numerals.html

                                      You could also show what the numeral system looks like in the
                                      Kelen script (I was surprised this wasn't on your site [or at least
                                      not in any of the places I looked]). Doing it in the script I think
                                      will make more sense to someone who's not math-minded.
                                      Rather than saying "32 = 40", you'll be saying "32 = %@", or
                                      whatever in the Kelen script.

                                      -David
                                      *******************************************************************
                                      "sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
                                      "No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

                                      -Jim Morrison

                                      http://dedalvs.free.fr/
                                    • ROGER MILLS
                                      Well, my Gwr do have four fingers per hand. Maybe when they count in decimal they use the palm or the fist for 5 and 10......... At one point I was so
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Well, my Gwr do have four fingers per hand. Maybe when they count in decimal
                                        they use the palm or the fist for 5 and 10.........

                                        At one point I was so fascinated with Base-8 that I developed a
                                        multiplication table for my own use and instruction, also a table of (some)
                                        squares, and (some of) the Na Kw�y Hu {Fibonacci) series-- all had
                                        interesting properties. I managed to add, subtract, multiply reasonably
                                        well-- division was more difficult!

                                        This assumes that octal people have developed the concept of zero, and
                                        place-notation, so that numbers are written out as
                                        thousands--hundreds--tens--units. Obviously in practical terms that's going
                                        to be 512 - 64 - 8 and 1 thru 7. Yes, it's Terra-centric, I know.

                                        4*2 = 10, 4^2 = 20, 4^3 = 100 and of course 10^2 = 100.
                                        3*4 = 14, 3^2 = 11 ha ha
                                        7*2 = 16, 7^2 = 61

                                        5+5 = 12, 6+7 = 15, 20+40 = 60 of course, but 20+70 = 110, etc.

                                        1,2,3,5,10,15, 25, 42, 67, 131 etc.
                                        (I think I got those right.)
                                      • Sylvia Sotomayor
                                        ... You re right, and I do have gifs for the numerals. I should do something like that. ... OK, added to the list of things to do.... -S -- Sylvia Sotomayor
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On 8/1/07, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:
                                          > Sylvia wrote:
                                          > <<
                                          > I would certainly explain in the longer definition that this was 40
                                          > base 8 (or octal) which is 32 base 10, but for the one word gloss, I'm
                                          > thinking 32 would be clearer to my mostly English-speaking readers.
                                          > >>
                                          >
                                          > I would definitely agree, if this dictionary is intended to be seen
                                          > by others.
                                          >
                                          > You know what might be neat is a page explaining the number
                                          > system, and a little script that would convert from base 10 to base
                                          > 8. There are tons of sites that have a little script that does that,
                                          > e.g.:
                                          >
                                          > http://netzreport.googlepages.com/online_converter_for_numerals.html
                                          >
                                          > You could also show what the numeral system looks like in the
                                          > Kelen script (I was surprised this wasn't on your site [or at least
                                          > not in any of the places I looked]). Doing it in the script I think
                                          > will make more sense to someone who's not math-minded.
                                          > Rather than saying "32 = 40", you'll be saying "32 = %@", or
                                          > whatever in the Kelen script.

                                          You're right, and I do have gifs for the numerals. I should do
                                          something like that.

                                          ...

                                          OK, added to the list of things to do....

                                          -S
                                          --
                                          Sylvia Sotomayor
                                          terjemar@...
                                          www.terjemar.net
                                        • Herman Miller
                                          ... I typically have used decimal numbers in glosses, including exponential notation for larger numbers, but if subscripts are available you might try
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
                                            > Hi,
                                            >
                                            > I am redesigning my dictinary for Kelen (yet again), and I am planning
                                            > on having short glosses (one word, maybe two) for each stem or base
                                            > word, and also longer definitions for each fully formed and inflected
                                            > word. My question: given that Kelen has a base 8 counting system,
                                            > should I gloss 'āllōr' as 32 or 40? It has the functional equivalent
                                            > of 40 in the language, being 8x4, but refers to 32 things.
                                            >
                                            > Thanks,
                                            > -S

                                            I typically have used decimal numbers in glosses, including exponential
                                            notation for larger numbers, but if subscripts are available you might
                                            try something like 40<sub>8</sub>. I've occasionally used that kind of
                                            notation for languages that use base-8 or base-12.
                                          • Benct Philip Jonsson
                                            ... Being etymologically inclined I feel pressed to point out that the -ty suffix in the English words for multiples of ten is cognate with _ten_. Perhaps
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Aug 1, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 1.8.2007 Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
                                              > I would certainly explain in the longer definition that this was 40
                                              > base 8 (or octal) which is 32 base 10, but for the one word gloss, I'm
                                              > thinking 32 would be clearer to my mostly English-speaking readers.

                                              Being etymologically inclined I feel pressed to point
                                              out that the "-ty" suffix in the English words for
                                              multiples of ten is cognate with _ten_. Perhaps you
                                              can coin a new 'English' suffix _-oct_, so _fouroct_?


                                              /BP 8^)>
                                              --
                                              Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
                                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                              No man forgets his original trade: the rights of
                                              nations and of kings sink into questions of grammar,
                                              if grammarians discuss them.
                                              -Dr. Samuel Johnson (1707 - 1784)
                                            • Henrik Theiling
                                              Hi! ... Or use 040 as in C/C++/Java/Perl/... At least programmers could read it then. **Henrik
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Aug 2, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hi!

                                                Jörg Rhiemeier writes:
                                                >...
                                                > You should gloss it as 32, or better, 4*8, but *not* as 40 because
                                                > it is a different number.

                                                Or use 040 as in C/C++/Java/Perl/... At least programmers could read
                                                it then.

                                                **Henrik
                                              • Jörg Rhiemeier
                                                Hallo! ... If they expect to find this convention in a dictionary. Most people (including many programmers, who may be aware of this convention, but won t
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Aug 2, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hallo!

                                                  On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:06:23 +0200, Henrik Theiling wrote:

                                                  > Hi!
                                                  >
                                                  > Jörg Rhiemeier writes:
                                                  > >...
                                                  > > You should gloss it as 32, or better, 4*8, but *not* as 40 because
                                                  > > it is a different number.
                                                  >
                                                  > Or use 040 as in C/C++/Java/Perl/... At least programmers could read
                                                  > it then.

                                                  If they expect to find this convention in a dictionary. Most people
                                                  (including many programmers, who may be aware of this convention,
                                                  but won't expect to find it in a conlang dictionary) will merely
                                                  wonder what the leading zero means, and read it as "40".

                                                  ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                                                • Sylvia Sotomayor
                                                  ... Which is another reason I think I d prefer glossing the word as 4x8. The longer definition can explain in more detail. And maybe even have the number
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Aug 2, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    On 8/2/07, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
                                                    > Hallo!
                                                    >
                                                    > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:06:23 +0200, Henrik Theiling wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > > Hi!
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Jörg Rhiemeier writes:
                                                    > > >...
                                                    > > > You should gloss it as 32, or better, 4*8, but *not* as 40 because
                                                    > > > it is a different number.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Or use 040 as in C/C++/Java/Perl/... At least programmers could read
                                                    > > it then.
                                                    >
                                                    > If they expect to find this convention in a dictionary. Most people
                                                    > (including many programmers, who may be aware of this convention,
                                                    > but won't expect to find it in a conlang dictionary) will merely
                                                    > wonder what the leading zero means, and read it as "40".
                                                    >
                                                    > ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                                                    >

                                                    Which is another reason I think I'd prefer glossing the word as 4x8.
                                                    The longer definition can explain in more detail. And maybe even have
                                                    the number notation in Kelen script.
                                                    -S
                                                    --
                                                    Sylvia Sotomayor
                                                    terjemar@...
                                                    www.terjemar.net
                                                  • Joseph Fatula
                                                    ... I think you d probably be better off glossing it simply as 4x8 , with a note in the dictionary about how the number system works. Otherwise you re going
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Aug 3, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:

                                                      > Which is another reason I think I'd prefer glossing the word as 4x8.
                                                      > The longer definition can explain in more detail. And maybe even have
                                                      > the number notation in Kelen script.
                                                      > -S
                                                      >

                                                      I think you'd probably be better off glossing it simply as "4x8", with a
                                                      note in the dictionary about how the number system works. Otherwise
                                                      you're going to find yourself repeating the same information over and
                                                      over again, when you could far more concisely give that information once
                                                      for the whole system.
                                                    • Lars Finsen
                                                      ... That was an interesting idea. I suppose -teen must come from OG - tehund or -te:hund, so perhaps we could assume an -ahtaud, giving OE - eahtad, perhaps.
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Aug 4, 2007
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Den 2. aug. 2007 kl. 08.36 skrev Benct Philip Jonsson:
                                                        >
                                                        > Being etymologically inclined I feel pressed to point
                                                        > out that the "-ty" suffix in the English words for
                                                        > multiples of ten is cognate with _ten_. Perhaps you
                                                        > can coin a new 'English' suffix _-oct_, so _fouroct_?

                                                        That was an interesting idea. I suppose -teen must come from OG -
                                                        tehund or -te:hund, so perhaps we could assume an -ahtaud, giving OE -
                                                        eahtad, perhaps. Not sure what this would make in modern English
                                                        though. Perhaps /-eid/ or even /-ei/.

                                                        LEF
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.