- #1

- 196

- 1

The point is, he kept switching bases the higher he counted!

He counted up to twelve in base twelve, such that thirteen was "twelve-plus-one", and nineteen was "twelve-plus-seven", but twenty was twenty. Thirty-one was "twenty-plus-eleven", but thirty-two was "twenty-plus-twelve", and thirty-one was "twenty-plus-twelve-plus-one". Getting up to ninety-six, we have "four-twenties-plus-twelve-plus-four".

I can definitely appreciate the logic behind this, as with twelve as a base, you can make all of your major fractions with integers (so that one-third of twelve isn't three-point-three-with-a-line-over-the-three-to-the-right-of the-decimal-point, but the integer four). Expand that to base 60 (like our Babylonian-based hour/degree-minute-second system of telling time and direction), and you can divide by two, three, four, five, six, ten, twelve, fifteen, twenty, and thirty.

But, why does this language use base twelve for fine-tuning, and base twenty for gross-tuning?

Very unusual, but I sense something deeper and VERY important going on here.