Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pacbell!hoptoad!peora!rtmvax!bilver!bill
From: bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Endian wars
Message-ID: <389@bilver.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jan 89 17:32:52 GMT
References: <6133@columbia.edu> <186@aucsv.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion)
Organization: W. J. Vermillion, Winter Park, FL
Lines: 23

In article <186@aucsv.UUCP> ok@aucsv.UUCP (Richard Okeefe) writes:
>Before arguing about whether big-endian order or little-endian
>order is "more natural" for people,
>
>So _both_ conventions are "natural" in human writing systems.
 
And mixed conventions are considered normal in spoken English.

Consider that, for example twenty-five or thirty-six would fit the
"big-endian" defintion, the numbers   thir-teen, four-teen, would be
considered "little endian"

To be consistant with the numbering scheme of 1 to 100 the numbers
after nine should probably be  teen-zero or ten-zero, followed by
teen-one, teen-three, teen-four.  Using the "y" ending would be
confusing if we called then   teenty-four of tenty-four.  Too much
sound-alikes for the twentys.

It appears the natural order is dis-order

-- 
Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!bill
                      : bill@bilver.UUCP