Gothic cardinal numerals
Hi, CodeCat! I've started working on Latvian numbers, which led me to Gothic numbers (via cognate lists in the Latvian Etymological Dictionary), which led me to see that Gothic cardinal numerals are listed as cardinal numbers. I've changed {{got-card}} to categorize into Category:Gothic cardinal numerals instead of Category:Gothic cardinal numbers (since the former is more accurate), and I'm changing "Numeral" to "Cardinal numeral" in headers. All in all it's a small change, but since you are the person who is interested in Gothic, I thought about checking with you first to be sure everything is OK. (I've also created a few form-of pages -- with a new template {{got-card-form}} that I created -- with the forms whose Romanized forms were blue in the declension table, i.e., those that are actually attested.) --Pereru (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually I'm slowly emptying out both categories in all languages. This has been a long-standing debate that seems to have finally been settled. The situation I'm working to create is: a single part-of-speech header and category, Category:Gothic numerals, and separate topical categories Category:got:Cardinal numbers and Category:got:Ordinal numbers. So {{got-card}} should probably become {{got-num}} to match the part of speech.
From what I've been taught (and also taught to others), "2" is a cardinal number, and "two" is a cardinal numeral; which is why, for Latvian, I created Category:Latvian cardinal numerals and Category:Latvian cardinal numeral forms. What were the arguments against this arrangement? Can I still participate in the discusion, or does "settled" here mean that there is no appeal? (OK, I don't want to be difficult or reinvent the wheel; but I would like to be convinced that the organization you outline is indeed the best.) --Pereru (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There is appeal but I really hope you let it rest. Or it probably never will. :/ The reasoning is that "numeral" is considered a grammatical part of speech, but "cardinal numeral" generally isn't. At least not from what I've found. 2 and two are both numerals, since they both refer to a number (the second positive integer). So the new category structure is an attempt to make a clear distinction between grammatical function (numeral) and their underlying meaning (number). Those two things do not always have to coincide. Most "ordinals" are not actually a distinct part of speech in many languages (including Gothic), but often are adjectives. The cardinal number 100 in Gothic (hund) is a noun, not a numeral, since it has a gender. The multiples of ten are likewise noun phrases, and take a genitive whereas true numerals can take any case in Gothic.
If "numeral" is considered a grammatical part of speech, then "cardinal numeral" is a subset of it, similar to "transitive verb" with respect to "verb". From this perspective, I can understand not wanting to have "cardinal numeral" as the header (just like "transitive verb"); but not why organize the categories differently (after all, Category:English transitive verbs exists and is a part-of-speech, non-topic subcategory of Category:English verbs).
Also, if both "2" and "two" are considered (grammatical) numerals, this tends to make "numeral" a bad label for a grammatical category, since it would then include "2", which is not a word.
The point about ordinals often not forming a coherent grammatical category is well taken, but isn't that similar to, say, participles, which often live astraddle between verbs and adjectives? If one were to use the same reasoning, then "participle" should became a topic category.
Cardinal numeral may be a subset of it, but it is not a distinct part of speech. In Gothic for example, all numerals are words for cardinal numbers, there is no such thing as an "ordinal numeral" in Gothic.
2 and two are both numerals but of a different kind. Two is a numeral word while 2 is a numeral symbol. I actually wanted to keep numbers in a part-of-speech like category. But it was argued that those words are not themselves numbers, they refer to numbers in the same way that toponyms refer to places. The word London isn't a place, it's a word referring to a place. In the same way, two is not a number, it refers to one. What distinguishes cardinals from ordinals is that they refer to numbers in different ways. Words for cardinal numbers indicate the size of a set (which is unordered) while words for ordinal numbers indicate the relative position in a list (which is ordered).
Unfortunately, the current category for numeral symbols is called "numbers", mixing the two kinds of words together. The move I am doing right now is partly an attempt to separate the two kinds. But the category for numerical symbols will need to be renamed sometime in the future, too.
Ordinals do form a coherent grammatical category... but that category contains more than just ordinals, since they don't have their own 'special place' grammatically - there is little grammatically that separates other modifying words (like adjectives) from ordinal number words. It is no coincidence that in for example English and Dutch the ordinal "first" has the same inflection as a superlative adjective, and in Gothic the word for "first" is a comparative. Ordinals typically serve to lift out a specimen with a particular property, which is also what comparatives and superlatives do.
Participles are a different matter... they behave like a mix between verbs and adjectives, and the idea of calling "participle" a separate part of speech is an attempt to find a single cover term to describe words that show both of those behaviours together.
Cardinal numeral is not a distinct part of speech, I agree, but neither is transitive verb, and again, Category:English transitive verbs is a subset of Category:English verbs, not an independent topic category.
There are two approaches to the question I can see: the scientific/linguistic one ('do ordinal numbers form a grammatical category in any way' -> 'is there a grammatical construction that needs the label for its definition' / 'is there a property they all share') and the dictionary one ('what has traditionally been done with these sets of words', 'what is the most practical way to organize things so that someone looking for something here at Wiktionary will know where to look').
I find the first approach more interesting, but the second one is probably the more relevant one here at Wiktionary. I will therefore simply argue that people who look for a category including the words "cardinal" or "ordinal", given what we all learn at school (before we get to the university, learn linguistics and see the light) will probably look under grammatical categories, not topical ones.
As for ordinals including words that belong to other categories... indeed. But so do cardinals ('ten' can be a noun, and the two possibilities -- numeral and noun -- are listed as such here at [[ten]]). I'd argue that ordinals are similar: there are words that are ordinal and also something else (comparatives, superlatives, etc.). (I note "first" is a superlative only historicallly; synchronically, there is no reason to see it as such). So what would the problem be with having a ===Numeral=== heading for ordinals, followed by a ===Noun=== or ===Adjective=== or whatever else they can be qualified as (with the respective senses listed separately) -- just as is done at [[ten]]? And ordinals would then be categorized as "Ordinal numerals" and as "Nouns"/"Adjectives"/etc.
All in all... Look, I don't want to be difficult, or to fight old fights just out of some sense of 'knowing better'. If indeed Category:Latvian cardinal numerals has to become a topic category rather than a part-of-speech one, so be it. Even if I'm right and it does make it more difficult for the casual user to find the right category, I don't think the difficulty will be so big to be worth fighting about... So maybe it's better to simply ask: what is the model outline for a cardinal or ordinal number entry that you guys have decided to use? And what is the right categorization strategy? How should "five", "fifth", "one fifth" (and collective/nominal forms like "group of five", e.g. Russian "пятеро", which is not a noun, unlike English "pair" or "trio") be categorized? --Pereru (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Cardinal numerals, being a subset of numerals, are in the same kind of relation to numerals as transitive verbs are to verbs. I note that Category:English transitive verbs is not a topic category, but a part-of-speech (sub)category under Category:English verbs. Why should it be different with cardinal numerals?
If ordinals do form a coherent category, then the other things in it that are more than just ordinals belong to more than one category. English "ten" (like "hundred" and "thousand") can be a numeral and also a noun ("tens of people"). So, under [[ten]], there are two headings, one for each case. Why not do the same for the other ordinals which also belong to other categories?
Also, from the viewpoint of practicity... If someone is going to come here looking for a category that includes the words "ordinal" or "cardinal" in its name, I think, given highschool grammar, that it's more likely they'll look for it under grammatical (part-of-speech) categories rather than under topic categories -- since their first encounters with the words "ordinal" and "cardinal" are likely to be in grammar class (later followed by math, but in a very different context).
But, all in all... I don't want to be difficult, or to fight old fights just for the sake of 'knowing better'. If it's been decided that categories like Category:Latvian cardinal numerals have to become topical categories, sigh, so be it. Although I think they'd be better placed as grammatical categories, the gained advantage is probably not enough to be worth the hassle of fighting for it (like everybody else here, I'd rather spend my time adding content -- in my case, to Latvian...) So maybe it's better if I simply ask: have you guys come up with an accepted format for numeral entries? What should the headings be for words like "five", "fifth", "one fifth" (and for collective words for "group of five", like Russian "пятеро", which, by the way, is not a noun, unlike English "pair" or "trio"), and how should they be categorized, and what should the categories be named as? If there's already an entry/category structure that's been agreed upon, you can direct me to it, and I'll try to make sure Latvian follows it (and to change my contributions to Gothic, Sanskrit, and Old Church Slavonic accordingly.)
CodeCat, something strange is happening -- I've replied twice to your last post here, but my posts seem to have been lost. Or are they somewhere else, awaiting approval?
I see both of the messages you sent, so I don't know.
To be honest, I don't fully understand all the grammatical details of this situation. The only thing I do understand for sure is that the situation I am trying to create is clearer than the one we had before (with "number" and "numeral" used side by side at the whims of every editor). So I would prefer to continue fixing this rather than having to wait and discuss even longer... This discussion has already gone unsolved for 5 years now, so I am just happy that there is a solution, I don't really care if it's the best one!
My mistake -- I didn't click on "Show 4 replies", so I didn't see my previous messages... I hadn't used this system for messages before.
OK, let's be pragmatic. I'll follow the system you guys have come up with. So: can you show me an example of an entry (headings, categories, etc.) for words like "five", "fifth", "one fifth" and "group of five" in some language which does follow the desired system (e.g., no ==Cardinal numeral== headings, I assume?)? And of one language that has the desired category structure? Any of the ones you've already fixed will do, if it is now exactly as it should be according to your system. I'll copy it for Latvian (and I'll fix what I did in Gothic, Sanskrit, and Old Church Slavonic to match it).
I think most of the Gothic words have been fixed now, so you can use them as an example. Category:Gothic numerals contains all Gothic words with the part of speech "numeral". It does not contain 𐌷𐌿𐌽𐌳 (hund, “hundred”) or 𐌸𐌿𐍃𐌿𐌽𐌳𐌹 (þūsundi, “thousand”), which are nouns (and have genders). 𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍃 (ains, “one”) is also used as an indefinite determiner in Gothic, meaning 'any' or 'some', so it should probably have a separate header for that. The category Category:got:Cardinal numbers does contain both. That category should probably also contain the Gothic numeral symbols, which are Gothic letters that are used as numerals, as in Greek. I haven't added them yet.
So far I have only worked on the cardinal number categories. Ordinals will probably be more difficult because it is harder to determine what part of speech they are. In English and most Germanic languages they are adjectives, but I don't know about other languages. I wonder if there are any languages where ordinals are also grammatically "numerals" and therefore are interchangeable with cardinals.