E-mail List Archives
Re: ordinal numbers
From: Viable Design
Date: Apr 30, 2008 4:50PM
- Next message: Viable Design: "Fwd: ordinal numbers"
- Previous message: Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: ordinal numbers"
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: ordinal numbers"
- View all messages in this Thread
The fact is, however, that most sources I've seen (as an English teacher by
non-summer weekday) do, in fact, refer to ordinal numbers using numerals as
abbreviated forms of the non-numeral ordinal numbers.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Jukka K. Korpela < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > My dictionary gives abbreviation as "A shortened form of a word or
> > phrase".
> > "59th" is a short form of "fifty ninth", is it not?
> No, it isn't. Just being shorter does not make it a shortened form or
> short form.
> Is "sata" a short form of "hundred"? It is shorter, is it not?
> Being an abbreviation means that you have omitted something to make an
> expression shorter. In effect, you leave out some characters. You might
> add some punctuation to indicate it as an abbreviation, or you might
> change lowercase to uppercase, but you don't just use something else.
> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ <http://www.cs.tut.fi/%7Ejkorpela/>