[hmm thunderbird interface may have changed, this is the second time I 
'reply' in stead of 'follow up']

On 03/28/2015 10:23 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/03/2015 21:52, Andrel wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys, been busy lately, so not always time to check p.o-t
>>
>
> That's good.
>
>> The story about this as I remember it is that most of GB used to say 4
>> and fifty (and some still do) but that some king or queen decided that
>> fifty four better fitted what was written.
>> And that we write 54 because four and fifty was exactly what the arabs
>> were saying too, and they write right to left.
>>
>
> The King bit does not seem right to me. So I went looking. This is the
> only thing I could find.
> You might find it interesting. On the other hand you might find it
> patronising and with the odd racist comment.
>
>
>
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2014/11/lexicon_valley_the_history_and_evolution_of_writing_out_numbers_in_the_english.html
>

yes patronizing and very american in not understanding how familiarity 
with something is not the same as something being more logical. (yes I 
know that is patronizing)

What they missed:
- what the spoken order is for arab (and hebrew) and how that might 
influence the way our numbers are written (i.e. big endian). (which I 
still find an interesting point)
- that both dutch and german say three thousand two hundred four and 
fifty. So an odd mix. Which also invalidates their 22 and 5000 example.
- that in multiplication the way the carry is used makes little endian 
more actually 'logical' Which was IIRC one reason for the 4040, z80 etc. 
to adopt that scheme. (which is irrelevant for this discussion in much 
the same way as their examples)

Post a reply to this message