Re: Tibetan half digits

From: Rick McGowan (
Date: Fri Oct 25 1996 - 13:56:25 EDT

Yesterday Michael Eversaon asked...

[[ bunch of stuff omitted to start with ]]

> That's what I gathered from the Tibetans too, but in the case you give,
> /3 = 2.5, which would imply that there is some notional value, /1 = .5, /2
> = 1.5, /3 = 2.5, /4 = 3.5 ... don't those always work?

But not all implications are necessarily facts. I think the implication you
mention may NOT be the case, except on some purely theoretical level that
never appears in usage... But someone needs to ask the Tibetans. I don't know
the answers to all the corner cases.

It may be that this is over-analysis -- trying to fit these things into a
decimal digitary mold for which they're not suited or intended. Maybe they
don't occur alone. I don't know.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:32 EDT