Re: Ebisedian number system (I)

H. S. Teoh sikyal:

>         y'i     zero
>         kei'    one
>         3jei'   two
>         3rei'   three
>         3dei'   four
>         3Pei'   five
>         3sei'   six
>         3Tei'   seven
>         3Cei'   eight
>         3Kee'i  nine.
>
> For numbers 2 through 9, the 3- prefix is simply the Ebisedian plural
> prefix; in compounds, this 3- is dropped. (_3_ is [@\], not to be confused
> with the number "3" :-).)
The 3- prefix seems odd to me.  I don't know of any language that
regularly marks numbers themselves as plural (although words modified by
numbers may be mandatorily plural).  It also is semantically
dubious--"eight" is not a plural concept, but a single concept that
denotes a collection of other things, like "herd" or "pile."

> So far so good. Nothing unusual here. (Except perhaps for the fact that
> _y'i_ is technically a nullar noun; so does it mean "zero" or the absence
> of zero? Or zero is just the absence of something, anything. :-P)
Exactly. This same duplicity applies to the curious marking of the
numerals as plural.

> Now comes the interesting part. These basic numbers are augmented by a
> system of "triads", which are based on powers of 3. The triad system lets
> you count above 9, and also introduces alternative words for 3, 6, and 9.
> (snip)
I like this system.  It's clever and allows for a good deal of
flexibility and vagueness where appropriate. However . . .

> That's it for the basic numbering system. Thoughts? Suggestions? Comments?
> Criticisms? Flames? :-)
>
> (ObTeaser: in the next post, we shall consider, aside from ordinals and
> cardinals, the all-important question of "how does the Ebisedi answer the
> question, `how many fingers do you have'?")
This, to me, seems like it should have been answered before you ever did
any of the other work. I know about the weird 3-based physics of the
Ebisedan conworld, but unless they actually have 3 fingers I don't think
that this would matter to them.  People learn to count long before they
learn a whit about physics, and people generally start counting with their
fingers. Thus, while I like the general design of the system, I'm
suspicious of the fact that it revolves around 3 if the speakers'
physiology doesn't demand it.  It strikes me as that frivolous, banal
"consistency" that we argued over a little while ago.

Rebuttals welcome, of course.

Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton

Replies