Re: Ordinal Numbers (1st, 2nd, etc.)
Re: Ordinal Numbers (1st, 2nd, etc.)
- Subject: Re: Ordinal Numbers (1st, 2nd, etc.)
- From: Arthur J Knapp <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 16:06:49 -0400
>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 14:02:13 -0300
>
From: Bill Briggs <email@hidden>
>
Subject: Re: Ordinal Numbers (1st, 2nd, etc.)
>
At 12:03 PM -0400 18/08/01, Arthur J Knapp wrote:
>
> (My excuse? Well, you see, on my planet, 101 would be "One Hundred
>
> and Oneth"... )
>
>
Really?!?!?! What planet are you writing from? In the higher
>
latitudes of the Americas it's "One Hundred and First" (which will
>
soon be the ordinal for some post in this thread).
;-)
I forgot to mention "One Hundred Twoth" and "One Hundred Threeth"...
>
... Does this mean we
>
need both Oxford and Webster versions of the handler? Or a dialog in
>
which to make the choice, eh? :-)
As a proud owner of an Oxford English Dictionary, I would have
to say that I don't understand your question. ;-)
Arthur J. Knapp
http://www.stellarvisions.com
mailto:email@hidden
Hey, check out:
http://www.seanet.com/~jonpugh/