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

Re: A question regarding dictionary entries

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Jul 31, 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.
      >
      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 2 of 26 , Jul 31, 2007
      • 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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.