Re: Chuvash numerals

From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (
Date: Mon Aug 06 2007 - 07:48:11 CDT

  • Next message: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin: "Re: Chuvash numerals"

    On Aug 5, 2007, at 10:25 PM, William J Poser wrote:

    > It is interesting that the numbers in the photograph at:
    > are not written the same way as described in the Wikipedia article.
    > That is, 14 is written 10-1-5 and 19 is written 10-1-10, as they
    > would be in Roman numerals, but that is not what is described
    > in the Wikipedia article.

    Yes, these seem very much like Roman numerals written with Chuvash
    symbols, don't they? Assuming the Wikipedia article is accurate, the
    systems seem to be close enough to begin with that some hybridization
    might not be surprising. Hmm.

    There may be another influence at work here too: in areas where
    Cyrillic script is used, Roman numerals seem to have historically
    been something of a vexed question. X and I are not usually
    problematic, but Cyrillic script doesn't have a V. Where the Roman V
    wasn't available, I understand izhitsa was traditionally used, but of
    course that became obsolete after the Revolution. I seem to remember
    seeing a typed Russian document in the early 1990s where У was used
    for V (so I guess we're talking І, ІІ, ІІІ, ІУ, У, УІ...).
    So perhaps the use of Chuvash \ for V in what are otherwise Roman
    numerals is partially due to V being an unfamiliar glyph in a
    Cyrillic script area?

    > Bill


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 06 2007 - 07:49:47 CDT