Fòram na Gàidhlig

Tha thu ceart, dà mhìle gu leth = 2500

The problem here is that this phrase comes from the old style of counting and that's sometimes at loggerheads with the new numbers.

2,500 = dà mhìle gu leth
2,509 = dà mhìle gu leth 's a naoidh
BUT
2,521
25,521
Would get messy, at least based on the info I have. I think the main problem is that with complex numbers, the placement of gu leth is not clear and it could potentially refer to more than one decimal. For example in 25,621 the gu leth could either be referring to half of 10,000 (from the 25,000) or half of 100 (from the 621) which I think is the reason why native speakers don't do that in the old style system.

In the newold decimal system it could be clear but I don't think teachspeak uses gu leth at all.

Tha mi a' tuigsinn a-nis, tapadh leat!

Seo ceistean eile agam.

1. Tha Aonad 18 (TYG) ag radh mu dheidhinn àreamhaich de bliadhna: 1915, 1905, 1713: "naoi ceud deug còig bliadhna deug" amsaa.
Ach ciamar a chanas mi "2010" mar eisimpleir?
Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gum bi sin gun "ceud" mar seo: "dà mhìle bliadhna 's a deich", ach an e "fichead ceud bliadhna 's a deich" a tha ann cuideachd?

2. Aonad 20 (còmhradh):

A dhà no trì dhùrachdan eile...

Why "a dhà" as abstract numeral, though there is "dhùrachdan" here?
Are there "a dhà" and "trì dhùrachdan" separatly, independent from each other, or is there any other reason?

3. Aonad 20 (còmhradh):

Tha e coltach gun robh Eairdsidh agus Peigi Stiùbhart ... deich bliadhna fichead pòsda an-dè.

Why "deich bliadhna fichead" and not "deich bliadhna ar/air fhichead"? The same thing occures further in Obair eile 5: "còig bliadhna fichead pòsda."

Bu mhath leam tuigsinn...

2010 > dà mhìle 's a deich. Chan eil ann ach gnàthas gun cleachdadh X ceud X, X agus X airson bliadhnaichean.

A dhà no trì dhùrachdan eile...

Tha an sèimheachadh car mì-àbhaisteach ach tha "A dhà no trì" cumanta. Tha mise coimhead air mar "fixed phrase". Cha chuala mise e le àireamhan eile co-dhiù.

deich bliadhna fichead pòsda

Deagh cheist. Chan eil fhios agam. Duine sam bith eile?

Tapadh leat!

Shaoil mi an toiseach gun robh sin mearrachd (typo), ach lorg mi "deich bliadhna fichead" a-rithist anns na freagairtean, Aonad 20, Obair 1, (c).
Feumaidh adhbhar sam bith a bhith ann, nach fheum?

Obh, obh!

Bha mi cinnteach gum bi [t] ann an 'an t-eilean' ; ach tha sin [t?] ann an 'as t-Earrach' mar eisimpleir (chuala mi seo, a bheil sin ceart?).
Ciamar a bhios sin ann an 'an t-Iuchar' amsaa?
An ann riaghailt sam bith a tha ann?

B' fheàrr leam sin a thuigsinn.

Mgr. Beltz wrote:I think the main problem is that with complex numbers, the placement of gu leth is not clear and it could potentially refer to more than one decimal. For example in 25,621 the gu leth could either be referring to half of 10,000 (from the 25,000) or half of 100 (from the 621) which I think is the reason why native speakers don't do that in the old style system.

Chan e "complex numbers" a th' annta. Dè mu dhedhinn, canar, 13+5i, no -3+j7?

A dhà no trì dhùrachdan eile...

It also appears in my other TYG in "craobh is dhà no trì mheanglain" and in Eadar Dà Sgeul in "tha mi a' dol a dh'iarraidh dhà no trì fhàdan" (p 72). I had come to the following (most probably incorrect) explanation: "two or three" can mean either of them, so let's put the following noun into the plural in case it's 3 but let's also lenite it in case it's 2...

A dhà no trì dhùrachdan eile...

As far as I remember they even use "... air fichead" consistently in ordinal numbers, so that for quite some time I believed one used "air fhichead" with cardinals and "fichead" with ordinals...

Seonaidh wrote:Chan e "complex numbers" a th' annta. Dè mu dhedhinn, canar, 13+5i, no -3+j7?

akerbeltz wrote:You know, when I started doing linguistics ... quite some time ago, I thought I'd finally escape maths.
http://akerbeltz.org/index.php?title=Co ... et_of_time

Thrissel wrote:I had come to the following (most probably incorrect) explanation: "two or three" can mean either of them, so let's put the following noun into the plural in case it's 3 but let's also lenite it in case it's 2...

Glè mhath! Maybe it is not a real explanation, but it's a good mnemonic aid.

poor_mouse wrote:Obh, obh!

Bha mi cinnteach gum bi [t] ann an 'an t-eilean' ; ach tha sin [t?] ann an 'as t-Earrach' mar eisimpleir (chuala mi seo, a bheil sin ceart?).
Ciamar a bhios sin ann an 'an t-Iuchar' amsaa?
An ann riaghailt sam bith a tha ann?

B' fheàrr leam sin a thuigsinn.

Leanaidh [t]/[t?] an fhuaimreag: If it's followed by a slender vowel, [t?], and if it's followed by a broad vowel, [t]. so, it is [t?] in an t-Iuchar as well, but [t] e.g. in an t-uisge.

That's the general pattern although with eclipsis coming in, sometimes it's hard to tell. My take is that some dialects have retained the an t- with broad t- in all instances (remember that an t-iasg technically is ant iasg), a bit like Lewis dè /de?/ (< gu dè < ciod e), so you do sometimes get an t-iasg as /aN ti?sg/ but /?N? t?i?sg/ is definitely more common.

So, it's [t?]an t-eilean, not [t]?
It this case my hearing let me down...

Yes, [t?] in an t-eilean.

Mòran taing!

Seo ceist eile agam a-rithist:

"Tha mi a' dol a shnàmh", mar eisimpleir: chan eil sinn a' fuaimneachadh "sh" [h] ann an "shnàmh", nach eil?

Nach innis sibh dhomh dè mu dheidhinn "thr", "thm" etc.(bha e na bu thraing na bha dùil agam, mar eisimpleir)?

akerbeltz.org...grammar_numerals:

Leth refers to a half of the previous largest round 100, 1.000, 10.000 etc unit. This gives a value of 50, 500, 5.000 etc. These are then combined to give 150, 1.500, 15.000 etc. Enter the "illogical" step. You might imagine that trì cheud gu leth equals 450. Wrong. It equals 350. This principle applies at each level (100, 1.000, 10.000 etc). You can then add the numbers 1-9 to these expressions, but once you hit the next full 10, you have to revert to the "normal" way of counting, e.g. dà mhìle gu leth, dà mhìle gu leth is a h-aon, dà mhìle gu leth is a dhà ... dà mhìle gu leth is a naoi, dà mhìle is trì fichead.

Lots of French and Spanish people say things like "I was there for three hours and a half", where the proper English order is three and a half hours. The old rule was that "a half" is a half of the last noun mentioned.

If you hear a Spanish person say "three hours and a half", you're going to understand 3½ without a problem -- you would never assume the half was half of "three hours" and think that they meant four-and-a-half.

If we replace "hours" with "hundreds", why should it be any different?

There's nothing illogical in language -- if it seems illogical, you're simply using the wrong logic.