Ugh okay here’s another “Danes shouldn’t be allowed to make number stuff”:
The time 15:25 is “five minutes before half 4”
“Fem minutter i halv fire”
So you round up to 16 before even halfway, what!?
Same in Dutch,
“Vijf voor half vier”
That makes perfect sense to me though. In Swedish we’d say fem i halv fyra. Five minutes to half four.
But in English half four would be short for half past four. I guess.
Counting like the Danish, however, that is an abomination.
What’s wrong with “25 over 3?” I see the need for half 4 by itself but things being relative to that is so weird to me
Agree - even “3 25” would be perfectly normal.
Well, it’s interesting because that would be the case with 15:20. That’d be tjugo över tre (twenty past three). But specifically 15:25 would be fem i halv fyra (five to half four). 15:35 is fem över halv fyra (five past half four).
And then 15:40 is tjugo i fyra (twenty to four).
So :25 and :35 are weird edge cases.
Man 3:25 is right there
I’m very Danish and refuse to adhere to this nonsense. It’s pronounced “three twenty-five”.
Jeg elsker dig for det
97
4x20 + 10 + 7
Quatre-vingt douze isn’t incredibly onerous when you use it in practice.
Yeah France is fine
Quatre-vingt dix huit or quatre-vingt dix neuf are definitely more of a mouthful and illustrate the point better.
hard agree i actually think france’s method of counting is pretty intuitive
Agreed. Fourscore and twelve just works (English used to use this, at least in formal speech and writing).
The map is wrong, Czechs can do both 2+90 and 90+2, I am not sure if it’s regional within the country, or depends on the context, but they definitely use both versions
@ObviouslyNotBanana Ninety-two → Nine-ty-two → 9x10+2 :troll:
Ehh, i’m not giving France a pass either.
The answer to 100 - 8 should not be four twenties and a twelve. We’re counting, not making change.
French counting is bunk. Way, Way, better then Denmark though apparently
the thing nobody mentions is that the 4x20 part became a word that just means 80 in people’s mind, it kinda not literal anymore, but the Swiss and Belgian ways are still better (edit the 4x20+10 is similarly just 90)
e a word that just means 80 in people’s mind, it kinda not literal anymore, but the Swiss and Belgian ways are still better (edit the 4x20+10 is s
And if it was 28 syllables, it would still be 80 in people’s minds. But the words are still four twenty eight for what could easily just be nine eight.
I get it, but it is really inefficient for something as oft used as counting.
If it makes you feel better, English is full of crap like that which doesn’t make any sense and I’ll own that as a trash language :)
Yeah that’s why i say the Belgian and Swiss ways are better, their French speakers have dedicated words for 70 80 90. That being said I not sure but I guess in a lot of languages those words just mean 7x10 8x10 9x10 … we understand base 10 better but that’s still a calculation in disguise, historically (and still in some cultures?) base 10 isn’t the norm (hence the 4x20 among others).
(edit the 4x20+10 is similarly just 90)
I can let you get away with the first part about 4x20 just becoming the word for 80, but with this one, you’re just fooling yourself and others.
If it were just another word for ninety, than ninety-two would be (4x20+10)+2 instead of 4x20+12 And it works that way up to 96.
Just stop making excuses and own the weirdness.
… I would say that’s more about 10 and 12 having their on words, we don’t say ten two, it’s a bit of a shortcut? Then after 16 we stopped caring and didn’t make new words, sticked to 10 7, 10 8, 10 9 for some reason, that IS weird. Unless you take into account that base 10 wasn’t always the norm and maybe it made sense to have dedicated words for numbers up to 12 or 16 because they were commonly used quantities or alternative counting bases idk. See I can find (blurry memories of, needs sources) good reasons ;p The point being people say 4 20 12 but only think 92.
Most Danes does not know how 92 is constructed - it is just as picture one, second calculation: 2 and halvfems = 92.
However, I do feel like we’re using Imperial unites.
I think the first picture jumps over a little bit of calculation:
9 x 10 + 2
2 + 9 x 10
p.s. The third one makes total sense!
Is this a Michael Hobbes joke?
For a real explanation of this watch this illuminating video.
TL;DW According to the perons, it’s based on counting sheep and from base 20. 1 score = 20 sheep. 2 score = 40 sheep.
To get to 50, you have 2.5 score, but they don’t say “two and a half”. They are quite Germanic and say “halfway to 3” (Germans do this too). So, 50 = half three score.The video also points out that English has (as the hodgepodge of a language it is) yet another remnant of Germanic languages: 13-19 are not “te(e)n-three to te(e)n-nine”, but “three-te(e)n to nine-te(e)n”, just like in German “drei-zehn bis neun-zehn”.
It’s quite easy to mock other languages, but there’s always a reason for why things are the way they are. Think of Chesterton’s fence.
but there’s always a reason
By and large, there’s a reason for everything, but it’s just not always a good reason.
If I have 100 rocks and take away 8, the answer to how many rocks I Have should not require a math problem. We’re counting, not making change. If your counting system isn’t decimal-based, you’re no better off than the US using imperial measurements.
I agree with your broader point about linguistics, but Chesterton’s fence has never sat right with me. Consider the inverse:
This annoying and unnecessary fence is an inconvenience, but since nobody can remember what it’s for, we dare not remove it
Chesterton’s fence is a warning not to commit this logical error: I don’t know what this fence is for, therefore I know there is no reason for it.
It doesn’t say never to remove it. It means you should try and figure out why it’s there and ask around before removing it.
It’s just a logic exercise that advicates forethought when enacting change. The bigger problem is people taking parables and thought experiments as gospel, faithfully adhering to the text without considering it’s intent.
More people need to read Asimov’s Foundation
I honestly don’t understand what’s insightful about it. It encourages a functional viewpoint that results in you inventing proposed uses for something that is a vestige of an inefficiency. Justifying something useless isn’t curiosity, it’s just masturbation. You should identify how a structure interacts with it’s current environment. There’s a reason functionalism is considered worthless in sociology.
I think the point is more that you should take care to consider why it was put there because it might be something that is not immediately obvious.
You should identify how a structure interacts with it’s current environment.
OK, but what if it was put there to stop something that only happens once every 10 years? Without taking the time to learn this, you might tear it down and then after a few years you’re scrambling to solve a problem that was already solved.
I’m very hostile to excuses for conservatism because they’re often positions to apologize for power structures that have a secondary gain. The point I’m making is you should never approach something that previously existed as if it was beneficial by default. It’s often not and that’s a fallacy as much as automatically believing it’s useless. That’s what this guy was doing with his Catholic apologia.
You should consider history to develop predictive theories(like what you’re describing). But those are always subordinate to observable reality and bothering with trying to justify them too much is generally worthless. Sometimes you just need to act.
there’s always a reason for why things are the way they are
Of course, no one is saying that the Danes were so drunk that they simply wanted to make their numbering so much different than everyone else. The problem is that they don’t want to change it, probably because “it has always been this way” or something.
Even Norwegian, which was historically more like Danish, changed to using “normal” counting in the 1950s. So it can be done, but Danes seemingly don’t want to change, despite the fact it makes their language harder to learn/use.
Change it to what? Twenty-one? One Twenty? Four times twenty and one? Four time twenty plus ten and five? You could go the Germanic way, the Anglo-Saxon way, or the French way. Probably there are more ways to express numbers.
It’s not as straight forward as imperial to metric, where metric is logical and imperial isn’t. A vigesimal system is logical, just like binary or hexadecimal.
even imperial had a logic when it was made, same with every old measurement system. Everyone has hands, fingers, and arms boom you have small scale. The acre was once just what a single ox and plow could do in 1 day. there was never a need to square feet per acre, who would ever need that. Plus look at how old system were written. Try uses the metric system with roman numerals.
How many inches are there in a foot? How many in a yard? How many in a mile? More importantly: why? The foot is from a duodecimal system (12 points = 1 line, 12 lines = 1 inch, 12 inches = 1 foot), but then then suddenly 3 feet = 1 yard.
Also the imperial system is simple, not logical. Sure, it’s based on body parts and simple things like that, but every moron could’ve seen that hands have different sizes. Now you have about 3 imperial systems (international, British, US) maybe more even more if the old colonies invented more units. Everyone knows the way forward for units it the SI units. It’s logical, it’s straight forward, and it’s used worldwide - except for a minority of regions that are staunchly are against it.
It’s a shame that, when Norwegians changed their counting system, the suggestion of using “to-ti” didn’t catch on for 20. It would be analogous to saying “twoty” in English.
This comment makes me so sleepy…
There’s also a reason for imperial measurements, but it’s still a worse system than metric.
What’s your suggestion for a change to the Danish counting system? Do you think it is as obvious as going from imperial to metric?
Yes.
Stop being weird, Danes, literally everyone else figured it out.
It’S tHeiR gErmaN hEriTaGe
If the Frisians can figure out how not to be a bunch of weird number freaks while running around on clogs on their dikes and being half fucked up French the Danes have no excuse.
I just tried to say tentyfive like four times in a row and I couldnt speak for 20 seconds after that. Thank you.
Bit of a sidenote.
Are the English numbers 11-20 influencer by the base 20 system of french back when we had French speaking royalty? And for some reason they’re the only unique “digits” for lack of a better term that survived because once we get to twenty it’s a pure base 10 system with a consistent pattern throughout.
I’m hoping someone more knowledgeable than me can tell me if my thinking is correct or not.
No, 1-12 are influenced by the old base 12 Germanic/Norse system, which is why -teen starts at thirteen, same as in German (11: elf, 12: zwölf, 13: dreizehn, 14: vierzehn & so on)… The -teen for 1x in english is also a carryover from this, being threeten, fourten, fiveten etc. with only numbers over 20 having their orders reversed - German has something similar with “und” only appearing in numbers over 20. English did historically too, eg. “four and twenty blackbirds”.
Base 20 was historically used for large numbers though, eg “four score and seven years” by Abraham Lincoln, which was a poetic way of saying 87 inspired from Psalms 90:10, which says “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” in the King James Version, which reflects that using base 20 for large numbers (and not just 80) was not uncommon in the 17th century.
Seems like they’re not, although I get your thought process. If we take Old English (which was English before the Norman conquest) and modern Swedish (since Sweden was never conquered by anyone from France or the Romans) as comparisons, we have
Eleven: OE endleofan, Swedish elva Twelve: OE twelf, Swedish tolv Thirteen: OE threotiene, Swedish tretton Fourteen: OE feowertiene, Swedish fjortun
I think you can see the pattern. These actually all have similar common ancestors going into Proto-Germanic, so they’re way older than the French influence on English.
Since other Indo-European languages like German and Russian do the same thing as English where the line between “one word numbers” and “two word numbers” is 20 to 21, I suspect that originates waaaaay back in the history of these languages
They must have meant 9*10+2 for most of the countries. For French and Danish you would just remember the word for 90 instead of using logic to get there so they are actually quite 90+2.
So do you mean to suggest “quatre-vingt-dix” just means 90 and doesn’t also mean “four-twenty-ten”?
You’re right. Only Denmark deserves 2+90.
And the Germans
Don’t they do 2+9*10?
Well quatre-vignt-dix is literally translated to “four twenty ten” (why not just nine ten? because historically french evolved with a base 20 counting system).
But when a french person hears that, they don’t hear those numbers, to them it just means ninety.
Just like an english person won’t hear. “four-ty”, and think “four-ten” “oh that’s 40”. Because “fourty” was originally “four-ten” (written differently because old english so I rewrote in modern for simplicity) and got shortened down.
To them “fourty” is just a word that means 40. Just like to metropolitan french people “ quatre-vignt-dix” is just a word that means 90.
Isn’t it mostly 9*10+2? 9 * ty (implying 10) + 2.
Even german does that, although weirdly the way you can’t just write down long numbers reasily one by one: Zwei (2) und ((and) neun- (9) -zig (*10)).
I’m German and our way of counting is genuinely stupid. 121 would translate to “onehundred one and twenty”. You’d think it’s just a matter of practice but errors related to mixing up digits are statistically more common in German speaking regions. Awesome when it comes to stuff like calculating medication dosages and such. Like it’s not a huge issue but it’s such an unneccessary layer of confusion.
It just feels weird saying it the other way tho
As a non-native working in German, the numbers are one of the trickiest parts.
My jobs generally involve a lot of math and discussions of numbers, and I often struggle with swapping numbers around in my head. Especially because when you get to bigger numbers people often switch between (or use a combination of) listing individual digits left-to-right and saying multi-digit numbers.
The though is when you occasionally notice natives mess it up!
My experience living in The Netherlands (which has a similar system) as a non-native whose mothertongue is from the Romance branch is that you eventually get used to it. I think that’s because as your language skills improve you just stop interpreting the parts of the number individually and handle hearing and speaking those “nastier” blocks of two digits as if the whole block is a language expression.
Even better the apparently flip-flopping between one way of ordering digits and another one in longer numbers (for example: “two thousand, five hundred and two and ninety”) actually makes the strategy of “everything between 0 and 99 is processed as an expression” viable (i.e. “two thousand” + “five hundred” + “two and ninenty”), whilst I’m not so sure that would be possible if instead of just memorizing 100 numerical language expressions we had to do it with 1000 or more.
(If you’re not a French native speaker and you learn the language you might notice something similar when at some point your mind switches from interpreting “quatre-vingt” as “four twenty” to just taking it in whole block as an expression that translates to eighty)
Funny thing: it is the correct way to count like that, also in english. Four-teen, eight-teen etc. They just turn that around beginning with twenty. How obscure is that shit, when you really think about it?
The older generation in Norway also uses that format. I usually tell them that we aren’t under German occupation anymore, so they should use the sensible format.
I’m bilingual and switch back and forth a lot between languages when I’m not home. As such I often mess this up half way through calculating something.
Yes! I’m German and I hate it. It’s also very inconvenient when entering numbers into a spreadsheet or something, because you have to know the whole number before you can start typing it.
Its so annoying with phone numbers as well, depending how someone pronounces is. My mom always says phone numbers in 2 digits, like 06 12 34 56 78 (06 twelve fourandthirty sixandfifty eightandseventy) and you just get confused because you want to type in the first number pronounced
Phone numbers should always be said by individual digits, makes it simpler and faster to type as you’re listening
In some languages, pairs work fine.
Surprisingly, even English does it correctly
except 13-19 at least
Absolutely agreed
Oh yeah, one of the pics that inspired me to study French. I was dreading the numerals but it’s not that bad. You count tens and twenties and sometimes they’re special. And numbers below 20 have specific names, but that’s kinda true in most languages.
A lot of languages have weird corner cases. (Like, in Finnish most numbers are perfectly regular. Except 11-19 which are not “one-ten-and-x” but rather “x-of-the-second”. I’m sure there’s a reasonable etymological reason. At least they’re not “teens”.)
Four score and a dozen.
93= Four score and a baker’s dozen.
That’s four goddamn numbers in a row!
