• 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I feel like the joke would’ve landed better if it said “first”. I know it’s pronounced the same way, but I’m gonna argue anyway that there’s a subtle difference. I’ve heard 0th used in cs to describe what was at the 0-index, so in that context 1st would be"second", but “first” generally means “nothing before it”. English is weird. I wonder if anyone knows whether the word “first” or “1st” came 1st (lol)?

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Ordinal vs. cardinal. It’s “first” not “onest”, right? Even the ancient proto-Germanic speakers could tell there’s a difference. (In fact, it’s basically a contraction of “foremost”, and has nothing to do with numbers; their weak numeracy was an advantage on this topic)

        If we weren’t implicitly choosing 1-indexing it would be 1nd for “second” (and still not “onend” or something). That breaks down once you get to third and fourth, though.

    • ElectricMoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Interestingly, we’ve got the same glitch in the Gregorian calendar, where the year 0 doesn’t exist. So the 21st century started in 2001…

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      They said 1st as an abbreviation of first (it’s a normal abbreviation 1st, 2nd, 3rd … 7th abbreviate first, second, third … seventh)