3 ms·

> Arabic numerals originated in right-to-left languages, This is incorrect. They originated in the LTR writing systems of India, which is why the full name is

by danans 7y ago

> Arabic numerals originated in right-to-left languages, This is incorrect. They originated in the LTR writing systems of India, which is why the full name is Hindu-Arabic Numeral System. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals If you read Arabic, this is clear because the numbers are written in the opposite direction as the words. > they were written and read starting from the least significant digit on the right. Only the ones and tens place are read from the right - which many languages do, including English in the 'teens' words: thir-teen == three and ten four-teen == four and ten fif-teen == five and ten In modern Arabic, the hundreds and above are read left to right. For example: 42: ithnaan (2) wa (and) 'arba3an (40) 142: maa'a (100) wa (and) ithnaan (2) wa (and) 'arba3an (40)

bangonkeyboard 7y ago
That's fair. As you note by drawing a distinction, modern Arabic and formal/historical Arabic differ in their digit reading order: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-numerals-written-left-to-right-in-Arabic https://www.quora.com/Why-are-numerals-written-left-to-right... I don't know if the original Hindu system read from most significant left digit first, but if it did then the historical transmission into Europe may have entailed two flips of numeric endianness.
- danans 7y ago
  > I don't know if the original Hindu system read from most significant left digit first The Sanskrit language (exemplifying the "Hindu system") had the same pattern as English for the teens, i.e: 11: ekadaśa = eka (1) + daśa (10) 12: dvadaśa = dva (2) + daśa (10) 13: tridaśa = tri (3) + daśa (10) etc .. In Sanskrit this pattern (least significant non-zero digit spoken first) continues through to larger numbers. so: 20: vimśati 21: ekavimśati 120: vimśati-śatam 1121: ekavimśati-śatam-sahasra etc. But it's important to remember that the spoken rendering of numbers in all these languages precedes the written representation by millenia. People have been counting much longer than they have been writing. Of course later ways of speaking the numbers may have been influenced by writing systems, but the spoken rendering of basic smaller numbers tend to be relatively stable over time.
chrismorgan 7y ago
(And English has historically had more warts than that, e.g. “three score and ten” = 3×20 + 10, “four and twenty” = 4 + 20.)

by danans 7y ago

bangonkeyboard 7y ago

That's fair. As you note by drawing a distinction, modern Arabic and formal/historical Arabic differ in their digit reading order: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-numerals-written-left-to-right-in-Arabic https://www.quora.com/Why-are-numerals-written-left-to-right... I don't know if the original Hindu system read from most significant left digit first, but if it did then the historical transmission into Europe may have entailed two flips of numeric endianness.

danans 7y ago
> I don't know if the original Hindu system read from most significant left digit first The Sanskrit language (exemplifying the "Hindu system") had the same pattern as English for the teens, i.e: 11: ekadaśa = eka (1) + daśa (10) 12: dvadaśa = dva (2) + daśa (10) 13: tridaśa = tri (3) + daśa (10) etc .. In Sanskrit this pattern (least significant non-zero digit spoken first) continues through to larger numbers. so: 20: vimśati 21: ekavimśati 120: vimśati-śatam 1121: ekavimśati-śatam-sahasra etc. But it's important to remember that the spoken rendering of numbers in all these languages precedes the written representation by millenia. People have been counting much longer than they have been writing. Of course later ways of speaking the numbers may have been influenced by writing systems, but the spoken rendering of basic smaller numbers tend to be relatively stable over time.

chrismorgan 7y ago

(And English has historically had more warts than that, e.g. “three score and ten” = 3×20 + 10, “four and twenty” = 4 + 20.)