tan e nanpa pi toki pona

[janKipo]

" janKipo wrote:
But that notation has no verbal equivalent, so is outside the language.

sina toki e lon. taso jan ali pilin ala tawa ni."
''jan ali li pilin ala sama ni'? (very ambiguous)

"mi pilin e ni:
nanpa luka li kulupu e tu tu la sama e nanpa mute.
nanpa luka li weka tu la sama e tu wan.
nanpa tu li kipisi e nanpa luka wan la sama tu wan.
sina pilin anu seme?"

This says, as best as I can make out, in tp: " If five numbers bring together four, [that] identifies [probably don't want 'e', and so "is the same as"] many numbers. If five numbers are twice distant, [that] identifies three. If two numbers cut six numbers, [that] is three. Do you think [prob needs an object, say 'sama']" You probably meant to say 'luka li [multiplies] tu tu la ni li sama mute. sina weka e tu tan luka la ni li sama tu wan. sina kipisi e luka wan lon tu la ni li sama tu wan.' Or so -- mathematical terminology is even less developed than numbers.

[jan Pina]

[janKipo]

Your second reading 'luka li kulupu tu tu la ni li sama mute' , "5 grouped four times is 20" (not that I really believe 'mute' means 20).
but 'nanpa' followed by a number word already has two uses and the third one just confuses matters; better to leave things as they are, where a number in a noun position is either than number per se or that number of things. I suppose 'number+'nanpa' is better, if we really need such things.
'luka nanpa li kulupu e tu tu' is merely odd, since number don't generally group things (call a meeting say), 'kulupu tu tu', while irregular, is clearer and not obviously wrong. Presumably you want 'nanpa' after 'tu tu', too. 'luka nanpa li mute e tu tu' is almost certainly luka tu tu, "five increases/enlarges four". These words already have meanings, you see, so you have a lot of negotiation to do -- beginning with proposals that do not immediately create opposite expectations from what you want to suggest. Since we don't yet even have a decent set of whole numbers, this all seems a bit premature. But I suppose it is a good idea to plan ahead (but you might look back through the records, since this planning has been going on for at least a decade).

[jan Pina]

Here is one more word which is good to use for multiplication.
It is a calque from English.
I'm not sure that "tenpo" in all languages can have this meaning but I like it.
And it seems Tatoeba.org supports it too.

luka nanpa li tenpo e tu tu la ni li sama e mute nanpa
I mean "five times four is equal to 20"
Isn't it great?

[janKipo]

I don't like calques and I don't think it is very wide-spread outside English, butit is another possibility. When we have numbers, maybe we can start to think about mathematics.

[Jan Heteromeles]

Dumb question: has anyone suggested a quinary (base-5) system for tp? Various aboriginal languages have used it, so it's far from unique.

luka would literally translate as 10 (base 5). One can also do "military-style" numbers (one eight five for one hundred eighty five).

It might look something like this:

1 wan
2 tu
3 tu wan (or tuwan)
4 tu tu (tutu)
5 luka. Or wan ala
6 luka wan
7 luka tu
8 luka tu wan (or luka tuwan)
9 luka tu tu (or luka tutu)
10 tu luka
11 tu luka wan
12 tu luka tu
25 ala
26 ala ali wan
30 ala luka
31 ala luka wan
49 ala tu tu luka tu tu
50 tu ala
51 tu ala ali wan
124 tu tu ala tu tu luka tu tu
125 mute
126 mute ali ali wan
625 lukamute
3125 alamute
15625 mutemute

It's silly, because we don't normally think in quinary terms, but it is somewhat consistent with the basic tp terminology.

[jan_Lope]

jan Heteromeles o, toki!

o lukin e ni.

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https:// ... 0000000000

[janKipo]

Yes, it has been thought of before and has generated no enthusiasm. As I have said before, the community is about equally split between those who think the large numbers are an abomination and those who think tp needs a decimal system. Systems other than decimal are out because the require relearning math and because they do not meet a major modern use of numbers ( actually numerals): addresses and identities.

[Jan Heteromeles]

Maybe because I got caught in the New Math craze back when I was in elementary school, switching between bases isn't really a problem for me, although obviously anyone who thinks that this requires "learning new math," doesn't get that only the numerals change, not the operations.

That said, the given tp system is basically Roman Numerals in drag, with all the problems that implies (for instance, doing long division). While a 1,2,3 many numerical system is appealing in its primitiveness (and is attested to in a few hunter gatherer groups in Australia and South America), I'd point out that even ravens count to five without difficulty, and there are even more hunter-gatherer groups that used base five systems than used 1,2,3, many systems.

As for addresses, feel free to translate 555 McKinley Avenue into tp without getting something sent to 15 McKinley Avenue

[janKipo]

Hmmm! Why 15 rather than 555? Presumably any acceptable system that can handle this problem says something like Luka Luka Luka' (Oh! palm to forehead!). I assume that it will be clear in context what system is in use or even have optional order-of-magnitude fillers "five hundred and fifty and five".

Folks on either side of New Math (Old Math and No Math) don't share your facility with base switching, which doesn't generally work so well with larger numbers anyhow. And, of course, doesn't deal with the numeral issue.