# Where there ever number-systems popular that were not "base-of-10"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 13, 2024, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048 "2024-01-13T19:17:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![FrenchDunadan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frenchdunadan/32/5449_2.png) [@FrenchDunadan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FrenchDunadan)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2024, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/21 "2024-01-15T19:19:38Z")
Well we had 1999: “mille neuf cents quatre vingt dix neuf” and ancient times were worse: > **[Quinze-Vingts National Ophthalmology Hospital](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinze-Vingts_National_Ophthalmology_Hospital)** > > The Quinze-Vingts National Ophthalmology Hospital (Centre hospitalier national d’ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts) is France's national ophthalmology hospital located in Paris, in the 12th arrondissement. The hospital gave its name to the Quinze-Vingts quarter. > The Hospice des Quinze-Vingts, a hospital for the blind, was founded in 1260 by Louis IX, king of France, also known as "Saint Louis". It was constructed on a piece of land called "Champ-Pourri", an area lying a short distance west of the ... The name of fifteen-twenty is an ancient form of saying three hundred (15x20) when we counted in base twenty. 80 is another (4x20). ---
**Author:** ![Al128](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/al128/32/16541_2.png) [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2024, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/22 "2024-01-15T22:24:31Z")
this might actually explain some of the weirdness in the electric systems of french cars … ---
**Author:** ![EnolaStraight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@EnolaStraight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EnolaStraight)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/23 "2024-01-16T14:00:40Z")
Could something in quantum mechanics be highlighted if we used base 137? ---
**Author:** ![veryfrank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/87869e/32.png) [@veryfrank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/veryfrank)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/24 "2024-01-16T14:38:09Z")
For some reason, cardinal Welsh counting is pretty normal, at least in its modern form, but traditionally was vegidecimal. Lots of mixes of twenties and “ten-on-twenty” and so forth. Ordinal numbers still use the old word for twenty, _hugain_ rather than _dauddeg_ (the latter is literally two-twenties), then places a weird emphasis on fifteen. Eleven is _unfed ar ddeg_ (first on ten), that goes up to fourteen _pedwerydd ar ddeg_ (fourth on ten) and then a straight fifteenth with _pymddegfed_. Then you add to that: _unfed ar bymtheg_ (sixteen, or first on fifteen) up through _pedwerydd ar bymtheg_ (nineteen, or fourth on fifteen). Except, of course, for _deunawfed_ (eighteen) which is literally two-ninth. Because reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/25 "2024-01-16T14:55:50Z")
> [@veryfrank](#): > > _dauddeg_ (the latter is literally two-twenties) Two tens. ---
**Author:** ![veryfrank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/87869e/32.png) [@veryfrank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/veryfrank)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/26 "2024-01-16T14:58:25Z")
Sorry, yes, typo on my part, too late to edit. ---
**Author:** ![abcdefghij](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/43a26b/32.png) [@abcdefghij](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abcdefghij)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/27 "2024-01-16T15:04:20Z")
> [@veryfrank](#): > > Except, of course, for _deunawfed_ (eighteen) which is literally two-ninth. Because reasons. On a family vacation decades ago, I picked up _Teach Yourself Welsh_. I didn’t get very far, but I loved the shear insanity of _pedwar hugain ar deunaw_ for 99. Learning French much later, I saw that they were trying to keep up, but just couldn’t pull it off. ---
**Author:** ![zimaane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@zimaane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zimaane)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/28 "2024-01-16T17:14:58Z")
I’ve read speculation that the French partially base-20 system may be due to substratum influence from Celtic languages. ---
**Author:** ![zimaane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@zimaane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zimaane)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/29 "2024-01-16T17:19:59Z")
Welsh also has 16 as ‘one after fifteen’ and 17 as ‘two after fifteen’, as alternatives to ‘ten six’ and ‘ten seven’. If I spoke Welsh I would definitely use the ‘after fifteen’ variants. ---
**Author:** ![veryfrank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/87869e/32.png) [@veryfrank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/veryfrank)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/30 "2024-01-16T17:43:27Z")
Dialect differences are crazy in Welsh. There are, I think, five main dialect groups, but every town and village does _something_ different from their neighbors twenty minutes away. Some towns never moved on from the traditional style of counting, for sure. ---
**Author:** ![abcdefghij](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/43a26b/32.png) [@abcdefghij](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abcdefghij)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/31 "2024-01-16T17:47:57Z")
> [@veryfrank](#): > > every town and village does _something_ different from their neighbors twenty minutes away Is _that_ why they’re base 20? ---
**Author:** ![abcdefghij](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/43a26b/32.png) [@abcdefghij](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abcdefghij)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/32 "2024-01-16T17:49:54Z")
> [@abcdefghij](#): > > _pedwar hugain ar deunaw_ for 99 For _98_, obviously ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/33 "2024-01-16T18:41:40Z")
My previous understanding was that base 12 and 60 were also the results of finger counting: A dozen by counting the phalanges of the four fingers with the thumb, and 60 by keeping track of five dozens with the other hand. Not sure though how that tracks with the one left derivation but? Anyone actually know? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2024, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/34 "2024-01-16T22:42:44Z")
> [@veryfrank](#): > > but every town and village does _something_ different from their neighbors twenty minutes away You mean, at the far end of the sign listing the town’s name? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2024, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/35 "2024-01-18T21:06:37Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > My previous understanding was that base 12 and 60 were also the results of finger counting: There are a number of unsubstantiated claims on the internet that the Ancient Sumerians, who used base 60, also finger counted in the way you specified. Some cites include the [BBC’s History of Maths](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/e3i0j/til_that_sumerians_and_babylonians_used_a_base60/) and [Mathematics Magazine](http://www.mathematicsmagazine.com/Articles/TheSumerianMathematicalSystem.php). The best one is an excerpt from [Empire of the Sum: The Rise and Reign of the Pocket Calculator](https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393882148) _by Keith Houston_ (2023), published in Lapham’s Quarterly: > **[The Early History of Counting | Keith Houston](https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/early-history-counting)** > > How ancient peoples learned to keep a tally. The argument is in the last 3 paragraphs of the article. Frankly I don’t follow it, but perhaps the book references the actual original research. ---
**Author:** ![Marvin\_the\_Martian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/marvin_the_martian/32/2898_2.png) [@Marvin\_the\_Martian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marvin_the_Martian)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2024, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/36 "2024-01-18T23:30:01Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > French is kinda the same. 80 is “4 20s”, and 90 is “4 20 10”. Abe Lincoln bought into this concept on at least one occasion… ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2024, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/37 "2024-01-19T00:09:18Z")
> [@EnolaStraight](#): > > Could something in quantum mechanics be highlighted if we used base 137? I don’t know, but in case other me aren’t aware of this number popping up in strange places: > **[137 (number) | Physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/137_(number)#Physics)** > > 1.Since the early 1900s, physicists have postulated that the number could lie at the heart of a grand unified theory, relating theories of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and, especially, gravity. | > 2.1/137 was once believed to be the exact value of the fine-structure constant. The fine-structure constant, a dimensionless physical constant, is approximately 1/137, and the astronomer Arthur Eddington conjectured in 1929 that its reciprocal was in fact precisely the integer 137, which he cl ---
**Author:** ![SCAdian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scadian/32/3292_2.png) [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2024, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/38 "2024-01-19T00:16:46Z")
Were there really tribes that counted “one - two - three - many”? ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2024, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/39 "2024-01-19T00:31:02Z")
The Pirahã, a tribe living in the Amazon, count “one - two - many”. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2024, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048/40 "2024-01-19T00:44:39Z")
> [@SCAdian](#): > > Were there really tribes that counted “one - two - three - many”? I do not think you are necessarily dealing with “tribes”. Only three numerals is hardly unheard of in various languages: Araona, Achagua, Baré, Hixkaryana, Martuthunira, Mangarrayi, Pitjantjatjara, !Xóõ > [@dtilque](#): > > The Pirahã, a tribe living in the Amazon, count “one - two - many”. Supposedly this is not really correct; there are no numerals in Pirahã. > **[BBC World Service - Discovery, Nature's Numbers, The Tribe with no words for...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03f5pqn)** > > The Piraha people of the Brazilian Amazon have no number words in their language The words claimed to translate as “one” or “two” do not mean that; see doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.007 > [@](#): > > On every trial, participants produced one of the three words hói, hoí, and baágiso. The proportion of each word produced for each number in the two conditions is shown in Fig. 1. In the increasing elicitation, hói was universally used to describe one object, hoí was used to describe two or more objects, and baágiso was used to describe quantities of three or more. These data were consistent with meanings of ‘‘one,” ‘‘roughly two,” and ‘‘many” for the three words. However, in the decreasing elicitation, hói was used to refer to quantities as large as six, hoí was used for quantities between 4 and 10, and baágiso was used for quantities between 7 and 10. Across the two tasks, none of the three words that the Pirahã produced were used consistently to refer to any particular quantity across the two tasks. Also no singular vs plural in that language. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-there-ever-number-systems-popular-that-were-not-base-of-10/996048.md?page=3)