I don't know of any particular reason but afaik in latin as well as
vulgar latin it was as you say 11-17 as digit + ten and 18-19 had
subtraction. No romance language continues the latin 17-19 but replace
them by (continuations of) decem et digit or decem ac digit or
decem digit asyndetically (e.g Catalan, modern (but not old) French).
Spanish and Portuguese have long replaced their inherited seze with
diecis'eis/dezasseis and there are also attested similar forms for e.g
12 (diz e dos), 13, 14 from the 13th century. Romanian has of course
completely remodeled their 11-19 possibly by slavic influence or
other influence that spurred both the slavic and the Romanian formations.
Bearnese is unique among Romance lgs in having the form tr'es-ch'eys
(three-six) for eighteen!
Alll according to Price in _Indo-European Numerals_ ed. Gvozdanovic.
mvh Harald
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, P&G wrote:
> > Why "17"? Did anyone menton "17"?
>
> I'm glad someone mentioned 17. Is there any particular reason why Romance
> numerals alter the structure at 17? (They change from digit+"ten" to
> "ten"+digit). Classical Latin altered at 18, but I don't know if Vulgar
> Latin did.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>