We need to distinguish between ‘numeric’ (‘numera’, ‘nombra’, ‘cifera’) and ‘numerical’ (‘cifereca’). Wells and ReVo include ‘cifereca’ for ‘numerical’, whereas neither Benson nor Vikivortaro does so, and Sonja does not include an entry for this term. So, kudos to Wells and ReVo!

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/numeric

This dictionary says both are synonyms. Could you illustrate the nuance by exemple sentences? I wish to know if such a nuance exists in other languages.

Altebrilas:http://www.dictionary.com/browse/numeric

This dictionary says both are synonyms. Could you illustrate the nuance by exemple sentences? I wish to know if such a nuance exists in other languages.

But ‘numeric’ and ‘numerical’ are not used interchangeably:
We say ‘numeric literal’, not ‘numerical literal’, and we say ‘numerical integration’, not ‘numeric integration’.
- and therefore should be given separate, independent, entries.
Furthermore, both Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary, the two dictionaries I normally use, do so:

Merriam-Webster: ‘numeric’
Merriam-Webster: ‘numerical’
Wiktionary: ‘numeric’
Wiktionary: ‘numerical’

There are a couple other other similar cases that it would be apropos to mention here: ‘historic’ versus ‘historical’, and ‘dynamic’ versus ‘dynamical’. Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary again give separate, independent, entries for ‘historic’ and ‘historical’, but they both conflate ‘dynamic’ and ‘dynamical’. However, ‘dynamic’ and ‘dynamical’ also cannot be used interchangeably, and should have separate, independent, entries. We say ‘a dynamic speaker’, not ‘a dynamical speaker’, and we say ‘a dynamical system’, not ‘a dynamic system’ – a dynamical system might be one in fact very slow. I’m guessing that Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary both slipped up on this point due either to inattention, or laziness. (Wiktionary has separate entries, but its entry for ‘dynamical’ simply refers back to its entry for ‘dynamic’. For this reason I added the qualification ‘independent’.)

One should see if such distinctions exists in other languages. In french we have "numerique" and "digital", which are sometimes interchangeable, sometimes fixed by use, but the rules don't seeem obvious, neither logical.

I think the best solution for a terminology is to translate the different meanings of these words into esperanto (arbitrary long) compound words or phrases and to propose suitable neologisms when they are too long or ambiguous.

Btw, what is the etymology of "kudos". According to Google Trad, it means "gloron" aŭ "gratulojn". Where this word came from?

Altebrilas:One should see if such distinctions exists in other languages. In french we have "numerique" and "digital", which are sometimes interchangeable, sometimes fixed by use, but the rules don't seeem obvious, neither logical.

I think the best solution for a terminology is to translate the different meanings of these words into esperanto (arbitrary long) compound words or phrases and to propose suitable neologisms when they are too long or ambiguous.

Btw, what is the etymology of "kudos". According to Google Trad, it means "gloron" aŭ "gratulojn". Where this word came from?

http://www.cross-reference-kingdom.com/vorto-etymo...

Thanks for the link.

Once again this is more about trying to map English and Esperanto in a way that is just not feasible or even necessary.

Altebrilas referred to the possibility of these differences with reference to other languages, because this actually does matter. Taking just one of the examples given in this thread: historic/historical, the constructions for German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian ... comprise a single word. This is not an accident or negligence and here's why:

For a native speaker of modern English it would be easy to cite common modern usages that appear to show a clear difference like: an historic novel/an historical novel. The former referring to a novel with some significance; having e.g. broken the mould with regard to form, content, influence upon thought and society; also being 'notable'. The latter referring to a novel containing historical subject matter or perhaps a novel with such subject matter and written some considerable time ago. That second definition makes it two grouped under one word.

Until fairly recently the adjectives historic and historical were interchangeable in English. 'Historic' in these contexts (like the above, or in a phrase like: 'an historic victory') is really only another way of saying: 'known' or notable' or 'noteworthy' or (historically) significant. To suggest that the absence of this English-style usage in other languages represents a failure or inability to accurately express these meanings is just not true.

It may appear that in e.g.French, un roman historique seems to be the insufficient translation for both English versions, but only if one is forcing all languages into one particular paradigm. French might say Un roman remarquable or Un roman historiquement remarquable where English tends to use 'historic' and just Une roman historique for the other meaning. [I'm not fluent in French so perhaps someone else might have something to say about this.]

In relation to Esperanto, there is no reason why it should need to accurately mirror the peculiarities or structures of English under the supposition that one language's seeming failure to tally with English structure signifies a lack. There are plenty of nuanced meanings and structures in other languages that are not present in English and yet all - including Esperanto - are capable of nuanced expression.

If you could perhaps consider this - and I mean it sincerely - without immediately assuming people are merely trying to derail your project, it might offer some useful things to consider.

Esperanto not be English with funny words?
Me saaaad!

Yes, there is an all too familiar tendency in the world of international auxiliary languages to try to map onto one's own native language. The attitude seems to be, My language has this feature or that word, and therefore any well behaved auxiliary must do the same. My language rules. Of course, this is not only nonsense but actually an impediment. In another situation, I have noticed that some users of (IALA) Interlingua want to "pull" Interlingua in the direction of Yet Another Romance Language, even though this is and was not its intention as a sort of Pan-Romance. There are some users of Esperanto who also seem to want to "pull" E-o into conformity with their own languages, as if E-o should be just relexified English or whatever.

bartlett22183:Yes, there is an all too familiar tendency in the world of international auxiliary languages to try to map onto one's own native language. The attitude seems to be, My language has this feature or that word, and therefore any well behaved auxiliary must do the same. My language rules. Of course, this is not only nonsense but actually an impediment. In another situation, I have noticed that some users of (IALA) Interlingua want to "pull" Interlingua in the direction of Yet Another Romance Language, even though this is and was not its intention as a sort of Pan-Romance. There are some users of Esperanto who also seem to want to "pull" E-o into conformity with their own languages, as if E-o should be just relexified English or whatever.

Yes, languages partition the semantic space in different ways. This point was made in Thomas Hardy’s novel ‘Jude the Obscure’.