tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 03 08:44:19 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIchegh / more puns?
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jIchegh / more puns?
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 10:44:08 CDT
> > 1
> > 2
> > 3
> > 11
> > 12
> > 13
> > 21
> > 22
> > 23
> > etc.
>
> No, the original post was right. To count in base three, it's 0, 1, 2, 10,
> 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 100, 101, etc.
>
well, that's how mathematicians count in base three...
it presupposes the concept of "zero"
and I would have expected this to be described as
1, 2, 1x3 (+0), 1x3 +1, 1x3 +2, 2x3 (+0), 2x3 +1, 2x3 +2
1x3^2 (+0x3 +0), 1x3^2 (+0x3) +1 etc.
instead, Okrand's description of 1, 2, 3, 3+1, 3+2, 3+3,
2x3 +1, 2x3 +2, 2x3 +3, 3x3 +1, 3x3 +2, 3x3 +3
indicates to me that the concept of zero is absent and there are
two different "3"s in the above. one that is used for the single
digits and one that is used for the unit of the tens digits.
in Roman numerals I think it'd look like
I, II, III, XI, XII, XIII, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII
with distinct words for I, II, III, X, XX and XXX
(I always thought it would be cool if the counting continued as
CXI..CXXXIII, CCXI...CCCXXXIII, M, MI MII..MCCCXXXIII, MM...
with I = wa', II = cha', III = wej, X = loS, XX = vagh, XXX = jav,
C = Soch, CC = chorgh, CCC = Hut and M = wa'maH or wa'vatlh or sth)
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]