🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> d...@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Smallberg) writes:
>Not literally an inconsistency, since "first" and "second" are etymologically
>unrelated to "one" and "two".  "Third" and "three" are related, of course, so
>one hopes that Dijkstra's lists are very short.

This same point is made by E.C.R. Hehner (member of this department) in his 
book "The Logic of Programming", and he goes on to suggest that we create the 
word "halfth" to go in between "second" and "third" so that "three" and 
"third" will match up (p81-82).

The obvious objection is that this goes against centuries of convention.
It is *not* like converting to metric where you replace one set of names
(and measures) for another because you are redefining your old terms to
mean something else.

However, there is also a problem when you consider other languages.  The 
French for "two" and "second" are "deux" and "deuxieme" respectively -- they 
*are* related.  The same is also true in German (and, I would imagine, Dutch).  
Do we now rewrite the French/English dictionaries?  If so, how?  We need a 
new word in French, but we must place it between "first" and "second", unlike 
English.  More and more confusing.

Incidentally, Prof. Hehner's book starts at Chapter 0, section 0, subsection
0 on page 10 (well, the table of contents start on page 0).  This is the 
only book I've seen where the odd numbered pages are on the left.

-- 
Mike Godfrey		  	
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT     	"Soulwise, these are trying times."
mi...@csri.toronto.edu    				-- Strunk and White