Hello all,

I am fairly new to Esperanto, I've been slowly studying the language (as time permits) and I'm really enjoying the learning process.

I do have a question that I hope does generate some discussion. This is bound to be controversial...

Has there ever been any serious discussion about incorporating SI prefixes into the Esperanto numbering system?

So, Kvardek Du (42) would be rendered more like kilokvar du (42) and ten would be kilounu, etc.

I ask this because SI units are international standards that most people (even in the States) already have some familiarity with the system and thus it would make the Esperanto numbering system easier to learn. Second, it would enhance the international character of the language (real or perceived) and just strikes me as an interesting idea.

Thoughts?
Jeff

I like those SI prefixes (gotta love "exa-", god knows what it means though ). In Australian English they're used quite often actually for shortened forms of the measurements they're used in (we be using the metric system).

E.g. "How far away is joe's house? Ah 25 k I reckon?" "How heavy's the package? Only 2 kilos, pretty light!" "How much does the car cost?" "$10k". etc.

So I believe it's possible for a similar thing to exist in EO colloquially, and indeed some people may do this ("kiloj"? )

I don't get why 10's would use kilo though. It should go, as per here:

deca
hecto (vs "centi")
kilo (vs "mili")
mega
giga
tera
peta
exa
zeta
yotta

As you can see, the 3 best known ones actually have EO equivalents, "dek", "cent", "mil".

Nonetheless, if we were to adopt that system some time in the future (it's neither likely nor unlikely, we'll let the future decide), it'd be best:
dek- = 10
hekt- = 100
kil- = 1000
meg- = 1,000,000
gig- = 1,000,000,000
ter- = 1,000,000,000,000
pet- = 1,000,000,000,000,000
eks- = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
zet- = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
jot- = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

But for me, everything above "gig" is pretty incomprehensible (well, maybe "ter" as well). Nonetheless it may be that in the future we'll see them all enter the language as nouns e.g. "du milionoj da homoj", "du mega(oj) da homoj".

At the moment all exist as prefixes in EO, but I guess you could try using them as nouns to start a little revolution in the way we think of numbers, but there may be some confusion. E.g. there's "deka-", but what about just using "dek"? Not to mention, is that -a part of the root of an adjectival suffix (it's actually part of the root but that doesn't take the confusion away when you see it). Not to mention "gigao" is cumbersome, but "gigaj" is incorrect grammatically speaking (a plural must come after an adjective suffix or a noun suffix, "giga" has none, but "gigaa" and "gigao" can have a plural marker).

I too like the consistent and logical nature of the SI units.

According to my understanding there isn't any authority to appeal to when suggesting changes in the language. That's kept the language from being perpetually redesigned and tweaked. The death by committee or too many cooks in the kitchen syndrome.

1. The language is old, is not a term paper or beta test program.

2. The authority/person to appeal to is long dead.

3. Millions of people have learned it as it is. Changing it may require reteaching millions of speakers who are speaking it voluntarily. Retraining current speakers may be like herding cats.

4. Languages evolve, esperanto is evolving, some words have fallen out of fashion, new words have arisen out of necessity and common usage.

5. If enough people use kilo interchangeably with mili then eventually it may be accepted in much the same way that kilo became understood and used as thousand. This understanding will not make old esperanto writing unintelligible however eliminating centi and mili could eventually create issues.

BTW, for many extreme nationalists, the very word international causes them to go into a drooling fit. I think the international hype needs to go and the term bridge language needs to be used.

SI- accepted world over. Understood by everybody. Logical.

Esperanto- mil is confusing with million. Odd illogical prefix system.

Problem?

More like herding tigers than herding cats.

The Esperantist are fiercely defensive of the language. Some things are up for grabs, but mostly you have to conform to established usage.

eojeff:Has there ever been any serious discussion about incorporating SI prefixes into the Esperanto numbering system?

Here's a webpage on SI units in Esperanto.

If I understand you correctly, in my view you can use international prefixes with Esperanto-language SI units (e.g. milimetro, kilogramo) or with Esperanto-language IT terms (e.g. megabajto), but not use them to modify Esperanto numbers.

eojeff, a friendly hint for you.

Esperanto is a living language, like any other language. It was created more than a hundred years ago, but today, people use it, they read literature, they sing songs, they tell family stories. Every beginner who learns a foreign language can think of a few things that they would have done differently if they were the one writing the language. "These Spanish reflexive verbs are too confusing!" or "These German noun endings are so unnecessary!". With 'national' languages, we think these things but we don't go to a forum for learners of the language to suggest that the language be changed. Why? Because they are living languages. It would be silly to go to a forum for learners of German and suggest changing the language to make it more regular or more international or more beautiful. German has certain attributes; take it or leave it, that's what German is, and although it evolves, it's not up for changes or discussion.

Many beginning Esperanto speakers are under the mistake impression that Esperanto can be reformed or "fixed" or "improved". They sometimes become angry when Esperanto speakers are unreceptive or even hostile to their good-natured suggestions for all kinds of great ways to improve the language.

But in fact Esperanto is not up for improvement, repair, or reform, anymore than German, English or Chinese. It is a living language that has its own literature and culture. And the "Fundamento", the sort of Constitution that forms the basis of Esperanto, prohibits these changes. The only reason why Esperanto has enjoyed the relative success that it enjoys today is because of its stability. Other languages created at a similar time have speakers numbering in the dozens rather than in the hundreds of thousands, because they didn't enjoy the stability that Esperanto enjoys. No one wants to learn a new language that could be changed tomorrow in the latest reform, after all. "Contact me when it's finished", they're likely to say.

So no matter how great your idea is, you won't be able to reform Esperanto, fix it, change it, improve it, etc. The best you can do is to create a new language that is simply based on Esperanto, that incorporates your changes.

------------

At any rate, the result of changing these roots would not really make Esperanto much more international, because we're just adding Greek roots. For example the Chinese word for kilogram, kilometer, etc, doesn't have "kilo" in it. It has the Chinese word for "thousand" plus the word for gram or meter. I think that these "international" prefixes are international only within certain limits.

Allan38:BTW, for many extreme nationalists, the very word international causes them to go into a drooling fit. I think the international hype needs to go and the term bridge language needs to be used.

I wouldn't worry about that. If they're an actual true nationalist and not just someone brainlessly committed to the idea because of hype, they'll be able to see past "bridge language" and know what it really means anyway.

As far as changing the language goes, I think this actually isn't quite the same as any old reform to the language. This rather seems like a suggestion to reform *every* language, or at least reform the way everyone over the world thinks of numbers. The EO of numbers, in other words.

Thus, it faces a whole new host of challenges IMHO - it has to work with more than just 1 language.

Nonetheless, Erinja's words are heedworthy - Esperanto itself can't be changed. Thus why you'd have to work around that, either by using the SI suffixes as nouns of quantity (like "miliardo" etc), or as counting system that applies to every language.

RE Chinese, that's more an outlier than properly representing the entire system.

Perhaps ultimately this discussion is best moved towards the EO forums since it doesn't seem to address learning the language itself and seems separate to the topic of Esperanto.

SI prefixes are usually applied to units, not the numbers themselves, so it would be quite a change to apply them to numbers.

Kilokvar would be 4000, not 40 (kaj kilokvar du would be 4002)

If you want to say 42 with an SI prefix, it would be dekakvar du (assuming deka=deca). As you see, it becomes very similar to kvardek du, so it seems an unnecessary and confusing change to me. It is like discussing whether we should use upper case for month names or something like that.


Or maybe would you prefer saying 42 as 4,2×10¹ (kvar komo du deka-aĵoj)?


Also, notice that Esperanto uses cent|mil sufixes as a multiplication by 100|1000 and centi|mili prefixes represent division (a fraction) by 100|1000. If we keep SI prefixes to units only, it is not confusing at all, but if we use them for numbers... Who knows what could happen?

ceigered:Nonetheless it may be that in the future we'll see them all enter the language as nouns e.g. "du milionoj da homoj", "du mega(oj) da homoj".

I think SI prefixes are great|wonderful|terrific|excellent|incredible|amazing for larger numbers (above and including kilo). The pseudo-sufixes ilion and iliard are somewhat weird. They can get ambiguous after (but not including) "miliono".

marcuscf:I think SI prefixes are great|wonderful|terrific|excellent|incredible|amazing for larger numbers (above and including kilo). The pseudo-sufixes ilion and iliard are somewhat weird. They can get ambiguous after (but not including) "miliono".

Now just to "substantivigi" them somehow and use them subliminally until they become popular