This website is a useless exercise, but the idea in the submission title "using fewer syllables to express numbers" has utility.
As a musician, I frequently need to count to a rhythm, and the pesky number seven's two syllables throws my cadence off. So I count a bar of 8 like this:
> one, two, three, four, five, six, sev, eight
Occasionally I'll need to count up to as high as 16, which is especially tricky. It'd be easiest to do it in hexadecimal-style, but somehow I can't bring myself to count a part out as:
> one, two, three, four, five, six, sev, eight, nine, a, b, c, d, e, f, g
If only I could convince musicians to use zero-based indexing instead of one-based.
I’ve settled on “sen” for seven when I want it short.
Zero could also do with being a monosyllable, but at least we have “oh” and “nil” for that.
Then there are letters. 25 of them are monosyllables (though a few like “aitch” and “kyoo” cut it fine), then w (double you) is three syllables, and not even right, it’s double vee.
Unfortunately, once I mysteriously manage to right these two wrongs, power will go to my head, and I’ll go ahead with other spelling reforms and abolishing a few stupid letters like c and x and replacing them with others for all those poor fricatives that have been loaded onto -h digraphs.
And while all that’s going on, I’ll be learning Telugu better, and it will laugh at me with its average of 2.5 syllables per digit.
I was in orchestra and band for about 10 years growing up. I never had a problem with seven (when we occasionally counted that high), it just gets two half-duration notes compared to the others. NBD
Going up to 16 would be pretty challenging though. OTOH, what's wrong with one and two and three and four and ...? I think we would did one eee and uh two eee and uh for 4-way subdivision, but I forget the triplet division.
The drummers all seemed to have a common syntax for different note length patterns without numbers, which you could probably drop in between numbered beats too.
In my father's accent/dialect (South Wales), the number seven is monosyllabic: it sounds more like "sevn" (with the v pronounced quite softly). The number "eleven" is similarly monosyllabic, and sounds more like "levn". I often use this when counting to a rhythm. Shame the numbers from thirteen onwards do have more than one syllable.
That reminds me of this music track(1) I'd added to my "flowstate" playlist(2) that has an insistent, driving beat with polyrhythms that caught my ear. I tried counting along and realized the primary beat is in 7/8, and in confirming it found myself counting, "one, two, three, four, five, six, sen, one,...".
Personally I prefer to use non-numerical word phrases (especially in odd meters) with the right number of syllables instead. If you want to you can even place accents where they're supposed to be with right words.
In French, all numbers between 10 and 15 except 14 are monosyllabic! So, you just might say "dix, onze, douze" and so on. (Quatorze will have to become 'torze or something.)
It helps to count from a as either zero or one (use “o” as zero then) rather than a as ten. Won’t help you with hexadecimal compatibility if you take the former but it should overcome the brain obstacle, and scales up to x/26ths at least.
Omg! I had just been thinking about this and had written up a proposal but hadn't published it. We could organically make common usage accept a single-syllable 7. Here's the writeup:
MAKE 7 MONOSYLLABIC
There is a lot of research that, in languages where the numbers have more syllables, native speakers have a harder time remembering sequences of numbers, because your brain has to store the cognitive load of saying it. So native Chinese speakers are much better at it than Spanish.
English is fortunate in in that all the digits are one syllable ... except for seven. If we could fix that, then we could cause a massive amount of good, when summed over all the times people have to remember numbers.
The good news is that we can promote this in a backward-compatible way, without having to coordinate in advance. Just commit to pronouncing 7 as "sen" (pretend you clipped the word as se--n), and eventually it will be the accepted pronunciation and codified as standard. As long as the listener is expecting a number there, they will automatically fill in the missing sounds and parse it as a 7.
Try it out some time! "Oh, there weren't very many, just six or sen."
That runs into the issue I was talking about in the proposal, where it's not backward-compatible and requires people to be informed of and sympathetic to the renaming. "Sen" will already be accepted as referring to 7, without such coordination, so long as it has enough context to be parsed as a number.
I doubt anyone would associate 'sen' with seven: 'sev' would be much more obvious. Whereas 'sept' is already used as a prefix within English to mean seven such as September (Roman seventh month), septuplets (seven children in a single birth) and septuagenarian (a 70 year old).
Anyhow, this discussion is moot as nobody is going to follow any proposal.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a good time signature that accents on a subdivision smaller than an eighth. Can you give an example?
I also don't know any musicians that would count everything. I usually hear "and", "and" "uh", "ee" "and" "uh", etc. between the downbeats and numbers are typically used to count whole notes.
Given all of music's esoteric conventions and historical vestiges, I'm surprised they don't zero index. Octaves divided into thirds and fifths, who decided that was ok?
"Our first priority is to minimize sylliness, but I think our second priority should be to maximize silliness. And 'thirty squared twelfths' is certainly sillier."
Nope, I got "four seven six five", which is exactly how I would read that number if it were a street address, or a phone extension, or an inumber, or the like. You will notice that the site doesn't give any context about the usage of these numbers.
This website is a useless exercise, but the idea in the submission title "using fewer syllables to express numbers" has utility.
As a musician, I frequently need to count to a rhythm, and the pesky number seven's two syllables throws my cadence off. So I count a bar of 8 like this:
> one, two, three, four, five, six, sev, eight
Occasionally I'll need to count up to as high as 16, which is especially tricky. It'd be easiest to do it in hexadecimal-style, but somehow I can't bring myself to count a part out as:
> one, two, three, four, five, six, sev, eight, nine, a, b, c, d, e, f, g
If only I could convince musicians to use zero-based indexing instead of one-based.
I’ve settled on “sen” for seven when I want it short.
Zero could also do with being a monosyllable, but at least we have “oh” and “nil” for that.
Then there are letters. 25 of them are monosyllables (though a few like “aitch” and “kyoo” cut it fine), then w (double you) is three syllables, and not even right, it’s double vee.
Unfortunately, once I mysteriously manage to right these two wrongs, power will go to my head, and I’ll go ahead with other spelling reforms and abolishing a few stupid letters like c and x and replacing them with others for all those poor fricatives that have been loaded onto -h digraphs.
And while all that’s going on, I’ll be learning Telugu better, and it will laugh at me with its average of 2.5 syllables per digit.
W='dub'. It's not even a made up thing, plenty of people said 'dubdubdub dot' back in the days when people spoke urls aloud like savages.
I was in orchestra and band for about 10 years growing up. I never had a problem with seven (when we occasionally counted that high), it just gets two half-duration notes compared to the others. NBD
Going up to 16 would be pretty challenging though. OTOH, what's wrong with one and two and three and four and ...? I think we would did one eee and uh two eee and uh for 4-way subdivision, but I forget the triplet division.
The drummers all seemed to have a common syntax for different note length patterns without numbers, which you could probably drop in between numbered beats too.
Because that's for half-time!
In my father's accent/dialect (South Wales), the number seven is monosyllabic: it sounds more like "sevn" (with the v pronounced quite softly). The number "eleven" is similarly monosyllabic, and sounds more like "levn". I often use this when counting to a rhythm. Shame the numbers from thirteen onwards do have more than one syllable.
That reminds me of this music track(1) I'd added to my "flowstate" playlist(2) that has an insistent, driving beat with polyrhythms that caught my ear. I tried counting along and realized the primary beat is in 7/8, and in confirming it found myself counting, "one, two, three, four, five, six, sen, one,...".
1. https://open.spotify.com/track/4TWzk0mTsVcwZRGkpoxjvG?si=vbK...
2. https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6UScdOAlqXqWTOmXFgQhFA?si=...
Personally I prefer to use non-numerical word phrases (especially in odd meters) with the right number of syllables instead. If you want to you can even place accents where they're supposed to be with right words.
Can you share a few examples?
Well, they're mostly in my native language, but it would be something like "hor-ses jum-ping e-ver-glade" to count to 7 in 2-2-3 grouping
In French, all numbers between 10 and 15 except 14 are monosyllabic! So, you just might say "dix, onze, douze" and so on. (Quatorze will have to become 'torze or something.)
16 too: seize
Sez -single syllable
It helps to count from a as either zero or one (use “o” as zero then) rather than a as ten. Won’t help you with hexadecimal compatibility if you take the former but it should overcome the brain obstacle, and scales up to x/26ths at least.
I'd reverse the second half and count it as: one, two, three, four, five, six, sev, eight, eight, sev, six, five , four, three, two, one.
If you’re counting it fast, you can run things together a bit:
One, two, three, four, five, six, sev, nate
Omg! I had just been thinking about this and had written up a proposal but hadn't published it. We could organically make common usage accept a single-syllable 7. Here's the writeup:
MAKE 7 MONOSYLLABIC
There is a lot of research that, in languages where the numbers have more syllables, native speakers have a harder time remembering sequences of numbers, because your brain has to store the cognitive load of saying it. So native Chinese speakers are much better at it than Spanish.
English is fortunate in in that all the digits are one syllable ... except for seven. If we could fix that, then we could cause a massive amount of good, when summed over all the times people have to remember numbers.
The good news is that we can promote this in a backward-compatible way, without having to coordinate in advance. Just commit to pronouncing 7 as "sen" (pretend you clipped the word as se--n), and eventually it will be the accepted pronunciation and codified as standard. As long as the listener is expecting a number there, they will automatically fill in the missing sounds and parse it as a 7.
Try it out some time! "Oh, there weren't very many, just six or sen."
Who's with me?
May as well just use sept from French.
That runs into the issue I was talking about in the proposal, where it's not backward-compatible and requires people to be informed of and sympathetic to the renaming. "Sen" will already be accepted as referring to 7, without such coordination, so long as it has enough context to be parsed as a number.
I doubt anyone would associate 'sen' with seven: 'sev' would be much more obvious. Whereas 'sept' is already used as a prefix within English to mean seven such as September (Roman seventh month), septuplets (seven children in a single birth) and septuagenarian (a 70 year old).
Anyhow, this discussion is moot as nobody is going to follow any proposal.
Sen’s good to me!
I'm having a hard time thinking of a good time signature that accents on a subdivision smaller than an eighth. Can you give an example?
I also don't know any musicians that would count everything. I usually hear "and", "and" "uh", "ee" "and" "uh", etc. between the downbeats and numbers are typically used to count whole notes.
Given all of music's esoteric conventions and historical vestiges, I'm surprised they don't zero index. Octaves divided into thirds and fifths, who decided that was ok?
Oof, "zero" is two syllables so we'll have to pronounce it "null".
Or use the preexisting naught.
Zed is probably fine.
[dead]
> 773466
> two hundred ten cubed twelfths plus twelve cubed minus twelve
Intuitive!
I got one that ended with “minus ninety halves”. How is “ninety halves” better than “forty-five”?
"Our first priority is to minimize sylliness, but I think our second priority should be to maximize silliness. And 'thirty squared twelfths' is certainly sillier."
Use Chinese to get the least amount of syllables.
Very true, worst case is 2n-1 syllables for n digits.
Finnish averages pretty close to 1 syllable per digit when you want it to.
Here's a Finn counting 1, 2, 3, ... 87 (and ending in very Finnish way):
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G57Zp7ZXYik
I tried "4765" (four syllables), and got "sixty-nine squared plus four" (6 syllables).
The ICAO phonetic alphabet specifically pronounces "4" as "fouwer", and "9" as "niner", so as to increase redundancy on a noisy channel.
You got "four thou-sand se-ven hun-dred six-ty-five" :)
Nope, I got "four seven six five", which is exactly how I would read that number if it were a street address, or a phone extension, or an inumber, or the like. You will notice that the site doesn't give any context about the usage of these numbers.
I'd love to see this done for French numbers, and no cheating with huitante or nonante.
Cheating? At least it's still base-10!
That's why it's cheating! Quatre-vingt-dix-sept is obviously the correct way to say 97.
And fewer syllables for 970067! (I think?)