2 ms·

That doesn't really make sense as a Classical Chinese sentence. 曼德博术使以广纵二数也。 is a bit closer to how you might see it in a non-mathematical text. 術means somethi

That doesn't really make sense as a Classical Chinese sentence. 曼德博术使以广纵二数也。 is a bit closer to how you might see it in a non-mathematical text. 術means something closer to "method," "procedure," or "way to do something." It's not a function or something that takes arguments in the modern sense. This programming language is following the style of ancient Chinese mathematical treatises very closely, which are all of the form X术曰：……

contingencies 7y ago
FYI I studied ancient Chinese history and some classical Chinese. I believe you have a blinkered view of valid grammatical constructions, perhaps due to focus on later period texts. IMHO in gross simplification, the earlier you go the less grammatical fluff is required, and the more is open to interpretation. I am not an expert but compare, say, a Three Kingdoms period text to a Tang text. In my impression your construction is far more explicit and latter-day. Nobody wrote like that early on, especially for content tending toward the philosophical.
- dwohnitmok 7y ago
  I'm writing in a style somewhat following a Warring States to Han Dynasty text (the 九章算术). The problem isn't the concision per se, it's that that's just not what 术 means here; it's not something that takes arguments. I'm being slightly verbose but I can't think of a construction that doesn't involve 以 or 数 (or synonyms thereof). It's true you don't need both. Now there is a way to make your construction work with a wider context, for example in one where you've established 术 as the notion of a function. Your general impression is correct that earlier texts tend to get more concise and that Classical Chinese is quite grammatically flexible. But there's still limits. Moreover ancient mathematical texts tended to be far more explicit and written in a far more direct style. Ending particles such as 也 are actually fairly rare in such texts.

contingencies 7y ago

FYI I studied ancient Chinese history and some classical Chinese. I believe you have a blinkered view of valid grammatical constructions, perhaps due to focus on later period texts. IMHO in gross simplification, the earlier you go the less grammatical fluff is required, and the more is open to interpretation. I am not an expert but compare, say, a Three Kingdoms period text to a Tang text. In my impression your construction is far more explicit and latter-day. Nobody wrote like that early on, especially for content tending toward the philosophical.

dwohnitmok 7y ago
I'm writing in a style somewhat following a Warring States to Han Dynasty text (the 九章算术). The problem isn't the concision per se, it's that that's just not what 术 means here; it's not something that takes arguments. I'm being slightly verbose but I can't think of a construction that doesn't involve 以 or 数 (or synonyms thereof). It's true you don't need both. Now there is a way to make your construction work with a wider context, for example in one where you've established 术 as the notion of a function. Your general impression is correct that earlier texts tend to get more concise and that Classical Chinese is quite grammatically flexible. But there's still limits. Moreover ancient mathematical texts tended to be far more explicit and written in a far more direct style. Ending particles such as 也 are actually fairly rare in such texts.