true, all 20-100 use -ty, why is 11-19 different? english is weird, it is a direct bastardisation of germanic languages, french, danish.
a lot of english word have french words which have arabic root which then is persian derived..
why do we say "breakfast" as "brekfst", or why do we say "cleaner" as "cleena"?
i wanna unlearn english i clearly didnt read the toc
a lot of english word have french words which have arabic root which then is persian derived..
why do we say "breakfast" as "brekfst", or why do we say "cleaner" as "cleena"?
i wanna unlearn english i clearly didnt read the toc
Timekeeping has been around for a long time. Every hour has a unique name. The rest of the numbers beyond 12, are on a base of 10 because we first learned to count on our fingers.
Wouldn't that be tenety one?
it isn't?
The concept of a dozen is pretty old.
Notice that it's eleven and twelve that are unusual. After a dozen we start thirTEEN, fourTEEN, etc.
Notice that it's eleven and twelve that are unusual. After a dozen we start thirTEEN, fourTEEN, etc.
omdat het nationaal team de "elftaal" is
daarom
dat kan dus niet anders, you know
daarom
dat kan dus niet anders, you know
@Noflaps said in #6:
> The concept of a dozen is pretty old.
>
> Notice that it's eleven and twelve that are unusual. After a dozen we start thirTEEN, fourTEEN, etc.
a "dozen" ??
((( (( ( btw, again, not an answer to the question - you have to interfere absolutely everywhere, in every thread, no matter what it's about, and drop your *** unprecise nebula of not even halfknowledge. ... question of time now [prediction!] until the other trolls, optonist, moonred and zska show up and join in drop their hail to this tree... ) )) )))
> The concept of a dozen is pretty old.
>
> Notice that it's eleven and twelve that are unusual. After a dozen we start thirTEEN, fourTEEN, etc.
a "dozen" ??
((( (( ( btw, again, not an answer to the question - you have to interfere absolutely everywhere, in every thread, no matter what it's about, and drop your *** unprecise nebula of not even halfknowledge. ... question of time now [prediction!] until the other trolls, optonist, moonred and zska show up and join in drop their hail to this tree... ) )) )))
@DuMussDieUhrDruecken , with regard to your #8, don't you think it would be better if you didn't criticize me unnecessarily and too often? If you truly object to my posts, why not just ignore them? Or address where you think I am wrong substantively.
Disagreeing with the substance of what I say is one thing -- that seems perfectly okay and fair, if the disagreement is sincere.
But accusing me of "interfering" simply because I posted an answer -- whether pertinent or not -- seems much different from mere disagreement about substance, doesn't it?
Similarly, referring vaguely and insultingly to my supposed "unprecise nebula of not even halfknowledge" doesn't really provide any pertinent answer of your own to the topic, does it? Yet, not providing a pertinent answer to the topic seems to be the very thing for which you are criticizing me.
I am not looking to jump all over your posts with reflexive "thumbs downs" and personal attacks. Indeed, I carry no grudge toward you or anybody else here. I wouldn't now be responding to your #8 if it appeared simply to disagree with the substance of what I wrote.
In any event, the answer I gave is ACTUALLY quite pertinent. Consult a good book on the history of mathematics and discover how traces of the ancient still show up, faintly, in the way we talk about mathematics today.
Do you actually think there's a BETTER answer for why we don't say "onety-one" than the answer I gave? If so, please provide it.
Similarly, consider, for example, why the French, say "four twenties" instead of eighty. It appears likely to be a relic from the use of a base-twenty system in the past, which is one of the few systems humans used historically. And that system may indeed have come from early humans thinking of fingers plus toes when counting.
The ancient Babylonians even used base-60, which helps to explain why we decided to use 360 degrees to describe a full circumference. Why they used base 60 is a bit of a mystery -- although base 60 does have some advantages: many divisors for the base. But it creates very unwieldy multiplication tables.
I'm not making any of this up. And I didn't have to look any of it up. Feel free to check what I write, if you don't already find it familiar.
I don't like to abandon humility, but I am far more informed than you seem to realize, my friend. Why don't we just get along? I am not looking for an opportunity to criticize you. I'm just writing, in good faith and with good will.
Disagreeing with the substance of what I say is one thing -- that seems perfectly okay and fair, if the disagreement is sincere.
But accusing me of "interfering" simply because I posted an answer -- whether pertinent or not -- seems much different from mere disagreement about substance, doesn't it?
Similarly, referring vaguely and insultingly to my supposed "unprecise nebula of not even halfknowledge" doesn't really provide any pertinent answer of your own to the topic, does it? Yet, not providing a pertinent answer to the topic seems to be the very thing for which you are criticizing me.
I am not looking to jump all over your posts with reflexive "thumbs downs" and personal attacks. Indeed, I carry no grudge toward you or anybody else here. I wouldn't now be responding to your #8 if it appeared simply to disagree with the substance of what I wrote.
In any event, the answer I gave is ACTUALLY quite pertinent. Consult a good book on the history of mathematics and discover how traces of the ancient still show up, faintly, in the way we talk about mathematics today.
Do you actually think there's a BETTER answer for why we don't say "onety-one" than the answer I gave? If so, please provide it.
Similarly, consider, for example, why the French, say "four twenties" instead of eighty. It appears likely to be a relic from the use of a base-twenty system in the past, which is one of the few systems humans used historically. And that system may indeed have come from early humans thinking of fingers plus toes when counting.
The ancient Babylonians even used base-60, which helps to explain why we decided to use 360 degrees to describe a full circumference. Why they used base 60 is a bit of a mystery -- although base 60 does have some advantages: many divisors for the base. But it creates very unwieldy multiplication tables.
I'm not making any of this up. And I didn't have to look any of it up. Feel free to check what I write, if you don't already find it familiar.
I don't like to abandon humility, but I am far more informed than you seem to realize, my friend. Why don't we just get along? I am not looking for an opportunity to criticize you. I'm just writing, in good faith and with good will.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.