Talk:Hebrew numerals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Hebrew numerals is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Chinese character "Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

Normal practice in writing numbers does not use the sofit forms of the letter. Hundreds greater than 400 are usually made by combination, for example 700 = 400 + 300 = tav shin.

I removed the following section, added by an anon:

Contents

[edit] Interesting fact

The Arabs did not invent the Arabic numerals, but instead the Hebrews did. The Hebrews decided to not use the number system that we use today except to express big numbers like 19,372, which could not be expressed in Hebrew numerals.

I don't believe it's true. If it is, please provide some kind of reference. -- uriber 22:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date example

The example looks wrong. Shouldn't there be a ב before the אדר? - Wing

Adar אדר is the name of the month, of course. The letter ב, if added, would make it mean literally "4th in Adar", or the 4th of Adar. This is possible, though not necessary in Hebrew dates. It is correct even as "4th Adar".

[edit] Arabic numerals

Sorry, though it is true the Arabs did not invent what we now call Arabic numerals, they brought them from India, the place where they were invented. There is no reason to believe that these numerals were invented by any other people, Hebrew or otherwise.

Furthermore, the Hebrew numerals can be used to express numbers over 1,000.

Cbdorsett 07:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The so called Braham alphabets used in India were Aramaic

The so called Paleo-hebrew Alphabets are NOT Hebrew but Canaanites Even these Hebrew Alphabet are not Hebrew, But Aramaic.

Aramaic people were Originally Semitic Arabs immigrated from Arabia, Not Ashkinaz from Russia and Poland

Arabs are the FIRST whom Invented the Alphabets as well as Numbers


11:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thousands

The article says that when expressing years using Hebrew numberals, due to the fact that they are in thousands, for example, with five thousands, an ה should be added before the hundreds, and it is the thousands. This is true, but I really don't think it should be a seperate word. i.e, the year 5764 should not be expressed as ה' תשס"ד, but as התשס"ד. The ה cannot be mistaken to not be the thousands, because it appears before the hundreds.

Also, it is possible to express millions (and so on) this way: the number 63,948,031 can be expressed as סגתתקמחל"א (note this is just one character longer than the roman expression of the number).

Has this representation ever been used? Do you have a reference?--Doron 21:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think that what you think about what should be make any difference... That's how it is and it's not going to change.

Your method alredy conflicts with current uses, as the order of letters is insignificant always except for seperated thousands.

[edit] Chupchik

Chupchik is not a proper Hebrew word, it's a slang word, originating from Russian slang (Чубчик). I propose to remove reference to this word in this article, and from wikipedia in general (replacing with the proper "geresh" and "gershayim", as applicable).--Doron 12:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is slang and I've never heard anyone refer to quotes as any sort of "chupchik". Perhaps occasionally someone might use the term due to ignorance of the correct word, but it's wrong to say that it's "commonly known as". Morbid88 00:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should not be used as the primary way of referring to these symbols, but there is nothing wrong with making proper reference to the popular slang term. "This mark is known as geresh in Hebrew ("chupchik" in modern Israeli slang.)" The fact of the matter is that the slang term is widely used, not just some weird obscure usage. This is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should include all sorts of information, not just what is judged politically correct by pedants. --Cbdorsett 04:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
a. I've never heard it being referred to as "chupchik" until I read it in Wikipedia, and I'm a native speaker of Hebrew who lives in Israel, so it's definitely not widely used.
b. There's no particular reason why this slang word ought to appear in this article, it has no special significance. I can't imagine slang being used in other Wikipedia articles in the same way (how about "Television, popularly known as telly, is a telecommunication system for broadcasting and receiving moving pictures...").--Doron 08:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Children in the United States are commonly taught in Hebrew School that the symbol is called a "chupchik". I am a nearly-fluent speaker of Hebrew in the United States, having only learned in school, and I had no idea that the symbol was called anything else until I read this article. I say this not to doubt the veracity of the true name of the symbol, but to claim the worth of including its unofficial name, and the worth of explaining all the information surrounding their respective uses. 66.229.50.4 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Jennifer

How do you know it is common? Do you have a textbook that uses this term? If so, you can cite it and I wouldn't object.--Doron 09:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually have never seen it called a chupchik OR a geresh in a textbook, I have never seen it named anything until this article. When attending Hebrew School myself, my teacher called it "chupchik". When in college and writing things in Hebrew during Modern Hebrew classes, no student called it anything other than "chupchik", and my class comprised students from all over the country. When teaching Hebrew school for the past few years, in a different state from my home state where I grew up, other teachers and students in our school called it "chupchik". Admittedly, I draw solely on my own personal experiences, but I must point out that if others in the US have had similar experiences, it must be worth including the term to some degree. Even if the inclusion simply says something along the lines of "The term 'chupchik' is sometimes substituted for the correct term 'geresh'. 'Chupchik' is in fact neither proper nor Hebrew in origin, originating from Russian slang (Чубчик)." Can we agree here? --66.229.50.4 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Jennifer
The Hebrew word geresh appears in any Hebrew dictionary. The word "chupchik", at best, is a slang word, and I don't see why the Wikipedia article should refer to slang words unless they have some special significance (I repeat my earlier example -- should we write "Television, popularly known as telly, is a telecommunication system for broadcasting and receiving moving pictures..."?). And besides, how do we know that "chupchik" is indeed so common? We can't base it on personal experience, your personal experience is quite different from mine. The way Wikipedia policy sees it is that if it is indeed significant enough to be mentioned, somebody must have already mentioned it in the literature. We are not supposed to write original material, certainly not from our personal experience, only to summarize published material from reliable sources. Well, this little chupchik appears to be very important to many people around here, I feel like a horrible person for objecting to it... Well, I won't object if you add something like you suggested above.--Doron 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)