English language, grammar, and cultural devices.

[Knygathin]

Jun 6, 2021 19:10:41 GMT Jojo Lapin X said:

I am reminded of the idiot (memorably described in a eulogy by his younger brother as "the most pompous ass I have ever known") on the Eldritch Dark Forum who thought he was entering his "7th decade" when he turned 71.

Dr. Farmer? I didn't know that. A very unusual (and pompous) phrase for trying to describe ones age. That is likely why he stumbled.

Aside from this, I thought you had respect for Dr. Farmer. I agree though, that he could be very pompous.

[Knygathin]

Jun 6, 2021 19:21:20 GMT Knygathin said:

Jun 6, 2021 19:10:41 GMT Jojo Lapin X said:

I am reminded of the idiot (memorably described in a eulogy by his younger brother as "the most pompous ass I have ever known") on the Eldritch Dark Forum who thought he was entering his "7th decade" when he turned 71.

A very unusual (and pompous) phrase for trying to describe ones age. That is likely why he stumbled.

Ok, so what I am trying tell you here Jojo, is that this is a very awkward and backwards way of expressing numbers. It is unnecessarily convoluted, and therefore an easy stumbling block. It is superfluous. When saying how old one is, of course, ... but also, logically following, when mentioning other historic years.

So, although you have been breast-fed from early age to think of the seventeen hundreds as the "18th century", and therefore don't reflect upon it, but do this connection automatically, and subconsciously, and simply accept it because that is all you know , ... you've got to admit, if you allow yourself to stop for a moment and consider it, that objectively it is an awkward way of expressing numbers.

And, as I said before, it is, if nothing else, linguistically delusive.

[andydecker]

I read often history, and I have to confess that this still makes me stumble for a moment. Especially if it is pre-1900. I was born in the 20th century so it is clear that is is 19something. But if I read 15th century, I involuntarily have to do the numbers to not confuse 1400 with 1500.

[Dr Strange]

Jun 7, 2021 17:41:27 GMT Knygathin said:

Ok, so what I am trying tell you here Jojo, is that this is a very awkward and backwards way of expressing numbers. It is unnecessarily convoluted, and therefore an easy stumbling block. It is superfluous. When saying how old one is, of course, ... but also, logically following, when mentioning other historic years.

So, although you have been breast-fed from early age to think of the seventeen hundreds as the "18th century", and therefore don't reflect upon it, but do this connection automatically, and subconsciously, and simply accept it because that is all you know , ... you've got to admit, if you allow yourself to stop for a moment and consider it, that objectively it is an awkward way of expressing numbers.

Not really. It only seems illogical if you don't think about it. Lets say you have a collection of individually numbered items (like a complete run of comic books in a series). You decide to pack them away in boxes, and each box holds ten items. You put numbers 1 to 10 in a box, and put a label on the box that says "Box 1". Numbers 11-20 go in "Box 2", and so on. If you want to find issue number 71, then you have to look in "Box 8" - there's no "logic" in saying that it "should be" in "Box 7". The thing is that you are not really "expressing numbers" in the way that you suggest, but sets of numbers.

On a completely unrelated note, I heard someone the other day question whether a 13 year old is a teenager.

[Dr Strange]

Here's a question for you - who decided the order of the letters in the alphabet? And how did they get everyone else to agree?

[helrunar]

Paging the Phoenicians, followed by the Greeks, the Romans, and eventually, various mediaeval pedants of Europe. 

cheers, Hel.

[Knygathin]

Jun 7, 2021 20:42:11 GMT Dr Strange said:

Here's a question for you - who decided the order of the letters in the alphabet? And how did they get everyone else to agree?

My guess would be that A came naturally first, because it was the initial expression of wonder Aaaaa! at being able to use sounds. And X, Y and Z came straggling last, to shove in some remaining cramped sounds they were able to press forth from the mouth by twisting the tongue and lips.

[Knygathin]

Jun 7, 2021 17:56:25 GMT andydecker said:

I read often history, and I have to confess that this still makes me stumble for a moment. Especially if it is pre-1900. I was born in the 20th century so it is clear that is is 19something. But if I read 15th century, I involuntarily have to do the numbers to not confuse 1400 with 1500.

THANK GOD! I am not all alone in this! And I believe Swampi has supported me from the start! The World is not all Twilight Zone, after all! 

[Knygathin]

Jun 7, 2021 20:00:10 GMT Dr Strange said:

Not really. It only seems illogical if you don't think about it. Lets say you have a collection of individually numbered items (like a complete run of comic books in a series). You decide to pack them away in boxes, and each box holds ten items. You put numbers 1 to 10 in a box, and put a label on the box that says "Box 1". Numbers 11-20 go in "Box 2", and so on. If you want to find issue number 71, then you have to look in "Box 8" - there's no "logic" in saying that it "should be" in "Box 7". The thing is that you are not really "expressing numbers" in the way that you suggest, but sets of numbers.

Well argued. But, ... it still doesn't make it much easier to visualize. It is something for librarians to handle, they are educated in that cataloging way of thinking, and do it all day. I have a few boxes of comics, but never numbered them. Nor do I number my books and bookshelves. But I see your point. In some instances it is a necessary way of structuring things, for practical reasons.