If you are a copyright owner and believe that your copyrighted works have been used in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, here is our DMCA Notice.

« The Companions of Saint Nicholas | Main | Marmaduke Explained »

December 20, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c29169e200d8350642f069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The First Thousand Numbers Classified In Alphabetical Order :

Comments

Fatherflot

Talk about anal magic!

terraplaner

numbers, bow before letters!

Woody

This seems like a good time to point out that according to the archives, there's only one instance of any part of Tom Johnson's "the Chord Catalog" being played on WFMU. Granted, it was only the 286 Ten-Note Chords... still, we thank you Dave Mandl for your efforts on Nov. 19, 2003.

W1π∑7Ω¥

Thanks a ton!

You never know when you might need this. Or — er — do you?

Merry Christmas to all of you!

Clayton

Not to be a grinch or anything, but if this list were truly anal there would be no instances of the word "and" separating the hundreds from the tens. Manuals of style and English departments frown upon the use of "and" when expressing numbers with words. Personally, I don't care either way, but if I were the one writing this list it would be considerably shorter, for more than just that reason.

Ho ho ho.

Steve PMX

Now do it in Aramaic.

Nicholas

Is, uh, everything OK, Mr. G?

PAWL

You missed six hundred and twenty-three and three eighths.

Arty Fufkin

That's a libretto if ever I saw one.

Michel di Grappa

A problem with this exercise is the use of "and" which is incorrect. Eight hundred and eight means 800.8; Eight hundred eight means 808. Despite the everyday use (i.e., "two thousand and six"), it is erroneous.

Flug

A problem with this exercise is the use of "and" which is incorrect. Eight hundred and eight means 800.8; Eight hundred eight means 808. Despite the everyday use (i.e., "two thousand and six"), it is erroneous.

Maybe in your universe.

In mine "eight hundred and eight" is by far the most common way to say 808, "eight hundred eight" is heard but only rarely, and no one would ever use "eight hundred and eight" to mean 800.8--despite the fact that there is probably some book somewhere that says you should.

By my phrase "no one would ever use" means I've never heard that usage even once in 43 years of listening.

Maybe there is somewhere where this is actually in usage, but not around here . . .

Tom Ritchford

I had a few minutes to waste.

Here's a script to do it for you automatically... http://ax.to/numbers.cgi -- I capped the number at 19,999 so as not to kill the server. (Note that I use the American standard naming...)

Tom Ritchford

The names without the "and" are correct. Many educated Americans use them, perhaps most people with training in the sciences, so if you've never heard it, it might say something about the company you keep. ;-)

Kenny G.

It's important to remember that Closky is French so the piece is not done in his first language. I wonder if there was a French version. If so, of course it would be a completely different order. Do French compound numbers contain "ands".

Kenny G

Guest

I think the argument against "and" in common usage for numbers such as 808 is in check-writing:
it's common preference to write Eight hundred eight and 00/100 dollars, not Eight hundred and eight and 00/100 dollars. (Squiggly line optional.)

beown

more interesting on the same topic(but in french):
http://incident.net/users/julie/wordpress/archives/enumeration

Dick Whyte

I think the discussion around and is kind of unimportant. For this to work I feel that the use of the colloquial is essential. It reveals institutional rules as arbitrary and banal. Why is eight-hundred-and-eight INCORRECT?? Is it not that there are two layers (a scientific use, and a colloquial use) and that both are correct depending on the context. More profoundly, both layers then interact and exchange meaning and ideas. Presenting this as inaccurate, or wrong, simply shuts down a dialogical relation between the two systems. When two systems meet there are (at least) two options: 1) one system over powers the other and shuts down its existence (differend), 2) both systems exchange information and support the others existence.

By shutting down the use of the word and the meaning of the work, its function as an idea is missed. Who gives a shit - it makes no difference to the conceptual content of the work (and actually, if we do read it as having significance I like that they have used the colloquial - takes me back to Galileo who was exiled for many reasons, one of which was writing science in the colloquial language of the people, rather than the rigid academic/religious language of Latin... food for thought).

I realise that I am adding to this discussion years after it taking place, but I guess that's part of the beauty of the internet. Deep time. Oh well - probably this will be read by no-one. Glorious silence...

All the best,
Dick Whyte

thyme onhans

I read it Dick.

jjm3x3

I read it too and I really do like what you said but in the strictest of math standards the and really means part of a whole number hence the decimal point. though you do bring up an interesting point on the two systems at work here. form a logic standpoint "and" is essentially an addition operator so I guess in those regards they could mean the same.

Ehsanullah

Please post the numbers in alphabets up to one thousands, thanks

The comments to this entry are closed.