From: Gregg Reynolds (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 22 2005 - 10:55:01 CDT
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 01:29 -0500 2005-06-22, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>> Right, but that's my point - this notion of "natural" ordering is
>> unnatural for Arabic. It is quite "natural" to type (and speak)
>> numbers in either order- least or most significant digit first.
> In Arabic counting, I believe I have heard, the least significant digit
> is given first.
11 through 99 - ones digit first (e.g. four-and-twenty)
100+ - either uniformly LSD first (not common today) (e.g. three and
ninety and nine hundred and one thousand = 1993)
or, MSD first for digits above the tens, LSD for 01-99 (e.g. one
thousand, nine hundred, three and ninety = 1993)
>> In fact you could argue that historically least significant digit
>> first is more "natural". My question is, is this also true for Hebrew?
> It doesn't matter, does it?
Yes. That's why I asked.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 22 2005 - 10:55:50 CDT