Re: [glosalist] Numbers (was:Errors in 18 Steps)

On Jun 22, 2007, at 2:22 AM, nick_hempshall wrote:

Yes. I agree with Doro. The system is entirely consistent in Glosa

7 is seti

15 is mo-pen

40 is tet-ze […]

Well, it might be consistent in Glosa, but it diverges from all
natural languages I know (which are not many, but anyway).

That’s not an argument, though. The question is, why could it make
sense to say ‘two hundred and twenty-five’ instead of ‘two two five’?

If you say ‘two two five’ you have to hear ALL of the numbers before
you know something about the MAGNITUDE of the number, i.e. whether it
is something in the thousands, hundreds, etc. If you deal with
numbers a lot, e.g. if you are a mathematician (like I am :) ), or
even if you are just interested in buying something, or if you speak
about the dept of a country in the news, the magnitude is the most
important thing - it simply makes a lot of a difference. ‘two two five’: the moment I miss one of the words, I get a
completely wrong impression about the magnitude of the number and
have no hint that this has happened. ‘two hundred and twenty-five’: as long as I understand the ‘hundred’,
I get the right magnitude. If I miss the ‘hundred’, I hear ‘two and
twenty-five’ and might recognize that I missed something.

To say ‘two hundred and twenty-five’ is simply MUCH LESS ERROR-PRONE,
than saying ‘two two five’. In common speech I still can and will shorten things anyway when I
think that the magnitude should be clear from the context.

I find this a serious drawback in the way numbers are handled in Glosa.

Saluta, Eike