- From: Simon Montagu <smontagu@smontagu.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 10:14:53 +0300
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, www-international@w3.org
John Cowan wrote:
> Jeremy Carroll scripsit:
> I think your historical explanation is correct except for:
>
>> This resulted in changes such that the phrase "four and twenty" is
>> now archaic, because of the least significant digit first construction.
>
> Doubtful, because only the last two digits were ever reversed
> ("one hundred and four-and-twenty" for 124) and because not all
> European languages were affected ("ein hundert fier-und-zwanzig").
>
Note also that Biblical Hebrew uses both most-significant-first and
least-significant first forms:
Genesis 23:1 -- "And the life of Sarah was a hundred and seven and
twenty years"
Ester 1:1 -- "Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethopia: seven and
twenty and a hundred provinces"
On the other hand, even in non-bidirectional languages, reading order
doesn't necessarily correspond exactly to writing order: we write $25,
but say "twenty-five dollars"
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 07:15:47 UTC