🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Jan16.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> mi...@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>In article <30...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> I write:
>>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).
> ...

I don't expect any proposed change to ever be adopted.  Informally, though,
people invent shorthands.  When I teach C, for example, when I get tired
of talking about "element 0 of <some array>", "element 1 ...", I'll say
"the zeroth element", "oneth", "twoth", "threeth".  It gets a few smiles the
first time, but students accept it and know what you're talking about.  In
an example where you've already talked about the zeroth, oneth, twoth, and
threeth elements, you can even say "fourth" and have the students understand
it as "element 4" (i.e. the fifth element).  I try not to overdo it.

I'd never do this in writing, since I hate it when an author foists a personal
language-reform crusade on a reader.  In a lecture, though, it comes across as
a spontaneous useful invention.

-- David Smallberg, d...@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das