Re: issues with greeknumerals

["Schmitz Thomas A." <thomas.schmitz@uni-bonn.de>]

On 07 Apr 2014, at 23:24, Otared Kavian <otared@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe not, since Roman numerals i, ii, iii, iv, etc correspond really to the way Romans used to write numbers, while Greek numerals \alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta, etc are rather our modern way of numbering items, analogous to the case one would say a), b), c), d) etc. 
> Would Thomas Schmitz give us some insight?

In fact, I was wondering what “Greeknumerals” would translate to. The most common system used in antiquity is the “Milesian” system: α=1, β=2 etc., but 6 is expressed by ς; ι=10; ρ=100, with two archaic letters as 90 and 900; this is used in most papyri. There are other systems in use (especially in inscriptions), they involve special characters which most fonts don’t have. The simple system α=1 up to ω=24 is used to number the books in the Homeric epics, so it also has ancient precedents. If we want to be nitpicking, it shouldn’t be called “Greeknumerals,” but rather “Greekalphanumericalconversion,” which sounds like a really snappy, memorable way to express it, don’t you agree?

So: this is just the historical and philological aspect, Greeknumerals will make sense to most users.

All best

Thomas
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________