LL-L "Numeralia" 2009.01.10 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 10 January 2009 - Volume 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
===========================================

From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Numeralia"

Beste Marlou,
You wrote:


>As Luc wrote, humans in hunter-gatherer societies need not count above
"eins, zwei, drei, viele". >Great numbers are dim from perspective, and we
always stand at 0.
It's easier to position yourself at 0, then at 215 478 652, 415 I reckon.
Some balance isn't too bad *s*.

Re Bushmen, I was somewhat wrong, they happen to count to four (not three)
and then say many. Maybe their system matches the five fingers of one hand,
with which they may want to sign those numbers. Btw, the Chinese use the
fingers of one hand to show numbers from one to ten. With five fingers you
could theoretically code 2^5 (= 32) numbers in one go; with both your hands
even 1024.

A handful or a fistful must have been important units of volume in the past
I guess. Also for "length", my dad still uses the word "ne grèèp" (~ grip
(E)) when he's referring to something as long as the maximum distance
between the tips of two fingers. For bigger volumes, one can say "nen elver"
(< erm-vol = armvol), "nen elver stroëe" for example, which is just as much
straw as one man can carry under one arm.

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Numeralia" 2009.01.09 (06) [E]

> From: heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk <heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Numeralia" 2009.01.09 (02) [E]
>
> So my brain seems to look at 17 + 38, breaks it down into 10+7 and 30
> + 8. I then add 7 +8 (which I can do now!) and arrive at 15. I hold
> the 5 visually in the right hand side of my inner sight and add the 10
> to 30 = 40. I then add the 10 (of 17) and and put it to the left of
> the figure 5 held in inner sight and so arrive at 55.
>
> I am sure there must be easier less complicated ways of doing this
> sum!

Indeed! As someone who does a lot of maths and programming but is not a
"natural" at arithmetic, I have had to pick up a few simplifications
along the way.

For addition, try to round your numbers by adding and then everything
gets easier:

17 + 38

Take 2 off the 17 to round the 38:

15 + 40

55, easy!

This sort of thing depends on looking for the easiest solutions and
knowing what simplifies problems, rather than following rules and
procedures.

> Sorry not very Lowlandish - but I am hoping that those with different
> number systems may provide interesting and differing descriptions,
> which might go to show that differing number systems produce different
> methods of calculation or different visualisation

Yes, Ron seems tolerant of getting into other fields as long as we
attempt to make our wanderings brief and look for ways of getting back
into the fold  :)

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20090110/5fa1d4b1/attachment.htm>