Skip to main content

Numeric Musings Gone Astray

I read the entirety of Cormac McCarthy’s All The Pretty Horses. All the way to the book’s depressing end. I know it was a literary best-seller and garnered a movie, but goodness, don’t read it if you want to finish a book with spring in your step and a happy whistle on your lips.
I switched to nonfiction, trying When Einstein Walked With Gödel by Jim Holt. It didn’t deliver a brain-cleansing escape. Barnes & Noble’s website describes it as “ . . . an entertaining and accessible guide to the most profound scientific and mathematical ideas of recent centuries.” That description may be a stretch; I suspect some readers might consider the book a cure for insomnia. Call me strange. I plowed through to the last page, and doing so activated some brain cells I thought long dead.
Portions of the book drift away from Einstein and atoms. One section examines how the structure of English affects the way American kids learn to count when compared with Chinese children. Do you realize four-year-old Chinese kids can count up to 40 at age four, while four-year-old American children do well to reach a count of 15? 
Holt also cites differences among adults. Because spoken Chinese number-words tend to be shorter than English equivalents—a quarter of a second versus an average of a third of a second—length of speaking time influences how many digits we can retain in memory. Chinese speakers: nine digits, and English speakers: only seven digits. It gets worse. Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong can retain ten digits in memory. 
Unimpressed? Examine the following table. Notice the short Chinese counting words and how they build one-on-another, unlike English, which requires longer unique words for numbers in the teens and above.
#   English        Chinese           Literal Translation
1   one               yî                     one      
2   two               èr                     two
3   three             sân                  three
4   four               sì                     four      
5   five               wŭ                   five
6   six                 liù                    six
7   seven             qî                    seven
8   eight              bâ                   eight
9   nine                jiŭ                    nine
10ten                   shí                    ten       
Now it becomes more interesting.  English has individual words for 11 through 19, while Chinese uses simpler combinations from the Chinese 1 through 10 list. Don’t rush; observe how they do it.
11 eleven             shíyî                 ten-one
12 twelve             shier                 ten-two
13 thirteen           shísân               ten-three
14 fourteen          shísì                  ten-four
15 fifteen             shíwŭ                ten-five
16 sixteen            shíliù                 ten-six
17 seventeen        shíqî                  ten-seven
18 eighteen          shíbâ                 ten-eight
19 nineteen          shíjiŭ                 ten-nine
At twenty and above, Chinese continues the simplistic building process. Yes, it’s similar to our system but uses short words and quickly-spoken sounds.
20 twenty              èrshí                  two-ten
21 twenty-one       èrshíyî               two-ten-one
22 twenty-two       èrshíèr               two-ten-two
23 twenty-three     èrshísân            two-ten-three
The process continues .
30 thirty                 sânshi               three-ten
31 thirty-one          sânshíyî            three-ten-one
32 thirty-two          sânshíèr            three-ten-two
33 thirty-three        sânshísân          three-ten-three
And so forth up to 100.
40 forty                 sìshí                   four-ten
50 fifty                  wŭshí                five-ten
60 sixty                 liùshí                 six-ten
70 seventy            qîshí                  seven-ten
80 eighty              bâshí                  eight-ten                       
90 ninety               jiŭshi                 nine-ten
99 ninety-nine       jiŭshijiŭ             nine-ten-nine
100 one hundred    yìbãi                 one-hundred
1000 one thousand  yìqiân              one-thousand
In addition to (pun intended) simple counting, allow me to point out another numerical convention in which we could improve: our American weights and measures system. Of the world’s two-hundred plus nations, only three do not use the metric system. They are the West African country of Liberia (famous as nineteenth century colonization destination for ex-American and Caribbean slaves), Myanmar (formally called Burma and recently known for internal strife involving its Rohingya minority), and of course, the U.S.A. 
The metric system is much simpler than our English system. No fractions and no quaint, outdated terms. In the metric system, only the following units occur:
1. Length: meter
2. Area: square meter (are)
3. Volume: cubic meter (liter)
4. Mass: gram (metric ton)
5. Force: newton
6. Pressure: pascal
7. Energy: joule
8. Power: watt
9. Temperature: kelvin (degrees Celsius)
Just consider length. In the American system, we cite inch, foot, yard, mile, fathom, rod, furlong, league, mil, pole, perch, hand, link, and chain. When specifying length, we labor with whole numbers and fractional values. Take a board of a random length, let’s say, 5 feet 4 and 3/8 inches. Adding that measurement to another board of random length can become time-consuming and prone to error. In the metric system, that length could be expressed as a whole number and decimal. 
The metric system’s advantage holds true throughout the nine measurement categories listed above: nine terms to learn versus more than fifty in the English system. Look at the list of units we use to measure volume: gallon, liquid quart, dry quart, liquid pint, dry pint, fluid ounce, teaspoon, tablespoon, minim, fluid dram, gill, peck, bushel, cubic inch, cubic foot, cubic yard, cubic fathom, cubic rod, cubic furlong, cubic mile, cubic league, cubic mil, cubic pole, cubic perch, cubic hand, cubic link, and cubic chain. 
It’s enough to cause a headache, and we’re too hidebound to accept change. We grumble about learning to negotiate traffic circles. Perhaps making ourselves more competitive by improving our counting or measurement systems is beyond our ken. And in spite of that, people want to move here. It must be for our craft beer. I bet the brewmeisters understand the metric system.
The End

© Richard. J. Schram

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Christmas 2009: Does The Garden Smell Fishy To You?

     Behind our mother-in-law’s hideaway — a humble structure of 650 square feet — we created a plentiful garden. In Year One (2008), which enjoyed a banner tomato-growing season, our 10 by 20 patch produced tomatoes in abundance, and we gave bagsful to a neighbor to share at her church. Our success made me boastful. “I feel agriculturally competent. And beneficent. By sharing with true believers, afterlife points will accrue.”      In Year Two (2009), we hoped to brag, “Our Better Boys are not only tasty, they grow in the bounds of a rustic, dry-stacked stone wall.” I googled famous walls of past millennia and pointed at the screen. “Look, Mary, our wall will be equally famous.” Enthused and optimistic, we took delivery of $400 worth of rocks. More fools were we. Our purchase, clearly discarded by someone more knowledgeable, only humorously formed themselves into something we called a garden wall.      Stone edifice erected, Year Two cre...

A Writing Exercise: Write A Short Story From God's Point-Of-View

It was a scene from years past. The toddler was fearless, and I saw no impropriety as he slipped onto Andreas Bauernsohn ’s lap. Although in his late eighties , he remained big-boned after decades of heavy labor, clutching the arms of his chair with fingers as round as hammer handles. His fingernails, trimmed with a jack-knife, were nicotine stained and thick as a leather belt. I appreciated his sturdy plainness. As a great-grandfather to the little boy among that gathering of children, parents, and grandparents, he smelled of kindness, bath soap, and . . . mothballs. Mothballs! By the gods of the ages. I was there to judge his worth and he assaulted me with mothballs. Holy oracles with stone tablets! Other than house flies and mosquitoes, mothballs were one of my few failures; they pained my ethereal nose so much I wanted to go old-testament and smite the old man dead. Hellfire and damnation! Sometimes my job was tougher than being a Presidential spokesperson. Smite? Don’t smite?...

Cookie! Cookie! Cookie!

           Although we Schrams are pallid-skinned subterraneans and seldom emerge from our garden level retreat—OK, it’s a basement office with a big window overlooking a bird feeder—we respond to our subdivision’s monthly TGIF announcements like small-brained animals answering an inbred urge: “TGIF Friday, bring an hor- d’œuvre sufficient for six.” We’re shallow. We don’t attend these gatherings social reasons; we show up because we’re sweetivores driven by gustatory lust. We feign just enough neighborliness to avoid expulsion and shunning. Yes, there we are, the ones saying, “Hi, good to see you,” with one eye reading nametags while the other eye scans the desserts. Shuffling closer to each month’s pinnacle of confectionery nirvana, we ask, “How are you?” “Dodge the flu this year?” “How was your vacation?” Using the skill of clandestine operatives, we surveil the options while monitoring body language and positional tactics. Only ruthless cunning will ...