I assume the OP is trying to keep some kind of hybrid system, where it is considered too difficult at this point to get people to change from saying “thirteen”, say.
But since the whole thing is not going to happen, I suggest the OP may as well go the whole hog and simplify everything in his hypothetical system.
Incidentally, another difference is that Mandarin cuts out the unnecessary “and” that languages like English and German include.
So English “Two hundred and twenty three” is just “Two hundred two ten three”
(NB: Although, it should be mentioned, Mandarin does include a spoken zero, which functions something like an “and”. But it is only for the first 9 numbers after a hundred. So “403” is “Four hundred zero three”. Anyway, the OP doesn’t need to include this in his/her system)
But not changing them risks confusion between fourteen and fourten, etc.
But there’s a bigger issue; is there a problem here that needs to be fixed? The article suggests that the counting system used has an effect on early mathematical ability, but this could be just a developmental feature. Unless the difference persists into maturity, I don’t see that it matters.
Could extend it to hundreds and thousands as well.
Tenten for 100. Twotenten for 200. Twotentenoneteen or Twotentenonetenone for 211. I could see this being a thing.
All kidding aside, I do believe language shapes thought and perhaps there is something for a more logical structure with English including math and number terminology.
Actually, dropping the “and” may be a good idea in English; more often than not, it’s already dropped in colloquial speech, so why not make it official?
I can guarantee that if this system was enforced then after tenten years or so people will be saying fourten as fort’n and fourTenTwo as fort’ntwo which is basically the same as forty and forty two. Which puts us back where we started but with extra letters to type.
I think that in this particular instance, English is superior because one can easily differentiate the place holder and also whether one is speaking a whole number or just a lot of separate little numbers. Which isn’t to say that English doesn’t have its downsides, for instance its spelling compared to most other alphabetical languages.
I’ve only taught counting to my own children, but I’ve taught math for 13 years to kids ages 7-10. Of all the difficulties kids encounter in math–including kids with very rough numeracy skills–remembering the counting order of numbers less than 100 doesn’t really show up on the list. The biggest confusions come in the move from 99 to 100 to 101: a lot of kids who struggle will go “99, 100, 110, 120” or “99, 100, 200, 300.” Or they’ll cross the 100 threshold fine, but will say, “109, 110, 120, 130.”
Before I’d entertain an option like the OP, I’d want to see clear evidence that the problem it solves is a significant problem.
Isn’t that how our current system started out? My understanding was that (for example) “forty” was originally “four tens,” and hundreds of years of linguistic drift made it into its own word. You can see it in every tens value to some extent or another. After switching to the new system, what’s to stop that from happening again?
I’m not sure that this defense really works.
I mean, if you were to say “forty nine” I would know from context, and the fact you didn’t pause, that you meant “49” and not two numbers: “40, 9”
It’s the same with Mandarin.
(disclaimer: I spend all day every day complaining about Mandarin. I’m not trying to diss English here, this just happens to be one of the areas of mandarin that is very logical)
Getting people to change their word choice on something as fundamental as numbers is going to be neigh impossible. If you really have your heart set on forcing a cultural change for the betterment of education you could start with something (relatively) easy, like converting the US to metric.
I remember being taught somewhere that the “and” is not strictly correct. The correct way to say 223 in English is “two hundred twenty three.” The “and” is reserved for numbers with a fractional part, as in “five and two thirds.”
Sorry, no cite. I thought I remembered a thread about this from several years ago, but I can’t find it.
