Quomodo numeri XXVIII et XXIX dicendi sunt?

Gregorius Textor

Civis Illustris
XVIII "duodeviginti" dicendum est; simili modo XIX "undeviginti".
Itaque, XXVIII, XXIX "duodetriginta, undetriginta", aut "viginti octo, viginti novem" dicendi?

And is it the same all the way up, for 38, 39, 48, 49, and in general, numbers > 9 that are 1 and 2 less than any multiple of ten (i.e., 10n - 2 and 10n -1, for integer n > 1)?

I began counting my leg exercises today in Latin, so I have to know! ;)
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member

Gregorius Textor

Civis Illustris
It is some comfort to know that the Roman authors had almost as much ambivalence about this as I do!

It seems to me that the authors using the "subtractive" forms (duode-, unde-) have more literary "heft" than those using the additive forms, although the latter group are by no means all slouches either.

And thank you for not only answering my immediate question, but another one that was on my mind waiting to be asked: how to perform a search of the classical Latin corpus. Godmy wrote something about it here , but I had lost track of it.
 

Gregorius Textor

Civis Illustris
@Gregorius Textor

Hey, how come you're not talking about leg exercises in one of the health & fitness/body threads with us? :p

Well, actually, I did give that a moment's thought, but my leg exercises are not very interesting.

Regarding the corpus search, what are you asking exactly [what is not written in the thread you've linked already]?

Edit: ah, you don't have any questions anymore, since you found the thread, right? :)
Yes, I found what I wanted there and here.
 
Top