🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Jan16.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
mi...@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>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.
>
> [blah, blah]
>
> 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.

Actually, "second" also means "deuxieme" in French. Obvisouly the term "second"
does have etymological roots derived from the number two, whether you call it
"two" or "deux" or whatever.

Valentin