I love this topic, keep the comments going! It gets even wilder/weirder when reading historical German monastary documents from the early modern period that sometimes mixed German numerical grammar with latin letters and abbreviations. For example this was a common way to write prices in the early 17th century in my region of study:
xiv C Lviұ f xxv bb iy d
All of this was in early modern German Kurrent (old cursive), of course, and with not always obvious whitespaces inbetween. The letters v and x looked somewhat similar, too, and you better don't miss the small strikethroughs anywhere in the lower or upper end of a letter which indicated "minus half" (except for the letter capital C which always has it). This is the kind of fun that brings me joy during my day while simultaneously providing the content for nightmares at night.
For some closure:
The short example would read as: (10+(5-1))*100 + 50+((5+3)-0.5) florin, 10+10+5 batzen, and 1+1+1 denari.
And that would translate to a price of 1457 ½ florin (guilders), 25 batzen (silver coin) and 3 denari (pennies).
Yes, absolutely! My work is related to monasteries. Some of these institutions were large economical organisations with hundreds or thousands of affiliated workers (in addition to the few dozens of actual clergy) stretching hundreds of villages/cities. Monastaries basically were the major corporations of the time. They did handle these amounts of money regularly.
Historical purchasing power for anything before the industrial revolution is hard to approximate. On the one hand because wages were not only payed in money, on the other hand because labor was very cheap and material cost was high - the inverse of today. To illustrate: They did lots of recycling work that would seem fanatical to us today, e.g. straightening old nails, reusing stones and wood from deconstructions, or even excavating and resharpening rotten fenceposts. To add some general and very rough perspective: An unskilled worker/day-worker could expect a yearly wage in the order of magnitude of about 5 fl (guilders) per year for very hard work and long working hours for 6 or 7 days a week (payed daily in non-face-value coins like pennies). However, it was common for wages to include living accomodation and/or food staples (that included wine or beer) - or pay out the worth of these things, separately. A pair of shoes was a valued gift one could give to an unskilled worker on special occasions.
It was a different time with different societal and economical systems in place. Estimated simplifications you might read online (e.g. 1 fl = 50€) are therefor to be taken with a buttload of salt - to the point one might call it a misrepresentation. Then there were the multiple events with increased silver and gold imports from the new world (combined with some greedy/desperate lords reducing the silver share of their coins). This led to multiple changes in the exchange rates between various regional gold, silver and non-face-value coins of the same names, complicating thing even more.
To solve these issues, the prices I named above would be in fictional coins of account, not actual physical coins that were payed. People had to do quite some math when doing accounting - and yes, minor errors happened all the time.
This sounds fascinating. I was always fascinated how complicated life could be in days past. Like how we take decimalization for granted today or the cheap conversion of money and the enormous availability of modern currency (i.e. Paper money and coins).
I once read about coin shortages and how that could impact an entire region. Fascinating stuff.
Do you happen to have book recommendations on the topic of coins or economic history of Europe (or even more specifically the German speaking area)?
If you happen to speak German I'd recommend "Das Geld der Deutschen" by Bernd Sprenger for an overview as he touches a lot of eras and different subtopics, starting from antiquity and ending with the Euro. Alternatively, "Kleine Geschichte des Geldes" by Michael North is another popular (and a little newer) survey book that I enjoyed. The most insightful parts for me were the in-depth explanations of the concept of bill of exchanges and cashless payments in general during the early modern period.
Since my focus is on monastaries and money is only one aspect, I did not research this sub topic comprehensively, even if it interests me personally - hence I conveniently didn't search much further than mostly German literature. I just checked: The only "English book" on the topic from my bibliography is the conference proceedings "Münzprägung, Geldumlauf und Wechselkurse" / "Minting, Monetary Circulation and Exchange Rates" (Trier Historische Forschungen, volume 7) from 1984. It is a little older but was still worthwhile to me, quite recently. Despite the name it only includes a few German but mostly English essays. They are not limited geographically to the German lands. As a small word of caution: Some of the essays are rather theoretical by nature, so this might not be the very best entry point if you want an overview, or you could simply skip these essays.
I do not love to recommend it here, but asking the English collegues on reddit via /r/AskHistorians might give you a much better answer if you're looking for good entry-level English literature on the topic. They also provide a list of recommended books that features a small "Political and Economic History" section. They included a book by Joseph Gies and Frances Gies that looks quite promising (but focuses on the time 1000-1500). Other than that I cannot find anything particularly relevant in that list. Asking over there might be worthwhile, though.
I am actually German so thank you for all the recommendations! I will check out some of the books (even though I know it will take me some time to get to them. I have a rather long reading list, but I will check them out!)
It's a pretty enormous amount of money now. I was thinking that a gold coin was 1oz which would have been an insane amount of money but some research has told me that guilder can refer to several different coins that are between .08oz and .11oz of gold mixed with other precious metals. Ignoring the other precious metals and assuming the lowest gold content 1457.5 guilders is a bit over 116 oz of gold. Gold is approx. $1900/oz so in gold alone that is over $220,000.
Actually in Estonian it’s üheksakümmend kaks. The first being a compound word of nine(üheksa) and ten(kümme) while kaks is just two. So it would be 9+10+2.
That’s exactly how it’s done in English: ninety means 9*10, then you add two. The wrong language in the picture is Russian. Because the Russian word for ninety is an exception and doesn’t follow the same rule as 80, 70, etc.
Well, no, in english ninety means 90. You don’t say nine-ten. Most probably it started off as nine-ten, but by now it is it’s own distict sound as someone else under this post commented.
Ninety is a shortening of “nine ten”. Eighty is a shortening of eight ten. Etc. All English numbers follow the same rule. Russian words don’t follow such rule. Similar shortenings are only for 50, 60, 70 and 80. 20 and 30 are also shortenings in a similar fashion, but slightly different. But words for 40 and 90 are just completely random and don’t follow any rules. The Russian 90 is actually a shortening of “nine hundred”. Just like 900 which sounds similar, lol.
The wrong language in the picture is Russian. Because the Russian word for ninety is an exception and doesn’t follow the same rule as 80, 70, etc.
You are neither wrong nor right here. Yes the Russian word for 90 does not follow the rule as with 80, 70 and so on. It still is a specific word for 90, it just doesn’t follow the same rule as with previous ones. So when saying 92, you still pronounce 90+2.
It is a whole messed up thing with numbers in Russian as there are multiple exceptions, another one being for 500, it just does not follow the same rule.
Seriously, have trouble enough with numbers anyhow. The French system is far more than my little brain can compute, so I pretend to have learned the language from Belgians.
But who knows, maybe the Danish system would have tipped my infant brain into having a better grasp of some concepts?
Perhaps I should preface this by mentioning I'm Danish. Before clicking the link I just read "Dutch Danish" and thought "those poor, poor people". Imagine our two languages combined.
I honestly don’t know the history. I just know that Belgian French uses septante and nonante, Swiss French uses huitante as well. I think it’s more comparable to the vocabulary differences between for example American and British English.
Man and here I thought the English system was kinda screwy, where at first it’s in base 12 and base 20 at the same time what with having special unique names for all digits up to twelve, and then thirteen through nineteen are also uniquely weird, then at twenty we decide “man fuck that” and then it’s in base 10 until we repeat that pattern every 100, ie “one hundred seventeen.” Or then we occasionally do stupid things like “seventeen hundred” instead of “one thousand seven hundred.”
It just now hit me that “teenager” is an inherently English construct because that weird partial second decade we have. I’m curious, how does that work in languages? Like, in French they have special words up to 16 and only do “ten-seven, ten-eight, ten-nine.” You spend seven years as a teenager in England but only three in France.
But continues after that. Apart from 11 and 12 the german system is consistent within itself, even if the system itself is kinda weird, English less so.
Edit: What i meant is the difference between ten/teen, whereas German uses zehn (“ten”) to build the “compount numbers”. There is also thir-teen as opposed to three-ten, which isn’t quite what eleven and twelve are, but it’s also not the same as the numbers following it. But others have pointed out that these are pretty marginal differences and i would agree.
Literally every single point listed by @captain_aggravated applies 100% identically to German. Could you explain how English is less consistent than German?
Literally only because of “teen/ten” difference. Everything else matches up, except that the roles of the cardinal stem (three) and the ordinal stem (thir) are swapped in 13 and 30 for German
Three, thirteen, thirty, third vs Drei, Dreizehn, Dreißig, Dritte
Used 3 as an example because it’s the most irregular out of the 9 non-zero digits in German
English has four-teen fif-teen etc. up until twenty and from that point forward has the decade in front of the single number twenty-one. In contrast to German which at least Always has the single digit in front of the decade
To be fair English has a lot of German. The “teen” sound almost certainly comes from the sound “zehn”. It’s pretty easy to hear how fünfzehn und sechszehn eventually become fifteen and sixteen. We’re more or less saying five ten just kinda mushed together.
More accurately, modern English and German come from the same root. A Proto-Germanic word for 15 developed into “fünfzehn” in German and “fifteen” in English.
We say dreizehn (three-ten) but dreiundzwanzig (three-and-twenty), so it’s not consistent for the same range of numbers as English. But it’s a bit more consistent because at least we don’t make up new words for 13-19 (“thir”, “teen”).
In Finnish, the numbers 11–19 are (the number for 1–9) + “toista”, lit. “of the second (ten)”. So 11 is yksitoista, “one of the second (ten)”. That system is only used for 11–19. Bigger than that is tens + number, e.g. 21 kaksikymmentä yksi (two tens and one).
The Finnish word for “teen” is “teini”, which is a loanword from English. The native word for a person that’s not a child nor an adult is “nuori” lit. “a young”.
In my language(Romanian), the numbers between 11 and 19 are onetoten,(unsprezece) twototen(doisprezece) … Ninetoten(nouasprezece)
There are 3 exceptions: for 11 instead of unusprezece(onetoten) its unsprezece(un/o is used when saying that there is only one of something, but unu is used when counting), for 14 instead of patrusprezece(fourtoten) its paisprezece and instead of sasesprezece(sixtoten) its saisprezece
It's fascinating how our number systems even evolved. They've done studies with remote Amazon tribespeople where they show them a number of dots and ask them how many there are, and found that their words for what we thought were their numbers 1-5 actually translate to more like 1, 2, 3, '4-ish' and 'many'. Interestingly when they've done the same with very young children then they've got similar results.
Counting is something that only took off when large-scale civilisations (and the need to pay taxes!) took off - before this there was never really a need to be specific when counting a quantity of more than about 4 or 5. Maths developed as an offshoot of language rather than something distinct and so our counting systems suffer from the quirks that come with this.
The more formal way of writing it (one thousand, two hundred and sixteen) is definitely more clear. But if it helps to remember the more colloquial way (twelve hundred): twelve hundred is a 12 followed by 2 zeros, just like one hundred is a 1 followed by 2 zeros.
I wonder if Swedish and English number words share a history, because I can imagine it started as “three ten” which gets crunched to “thr-t’n” and then properified into “thirteen.”
They’re both Germanic languages, just like Dutch, German, Norwegian, Danish and a few others. Same origin. All of them have variations of tre/dre/drei/thir/þre/þrēo (say them with sounds halfway between t and d as the first sound, and you’ll see how similar they are) followed by variations of ten/teen/tin/tan/ton/tien/zehn as a suffix for ten (again, pick a halfway point between t and z and it’s easier to see how similar they are).
In Old English it was þrēotīene ( þ is “th”), and in Old Norse it was þrettán, same as modern Icelandic, so the first common root is even further back, but you can see the similarity. The *hypothesized proto-Germanic root is þritehun. (þriz + tehun.
But, it goes back even further than that. The Romance languages (tres, trois etc) shares the same proto-Indo-European root (hypothesized to be tréyes) for three with proto-Germanic.
The names for numbers are ancient, and though not always recognisable, sometimes recognizable variants pop up even further away than you’d expect. E.g. Pashto (Southeastern Iran) has dre for three, Sanskrit has trí, Indonesian has tri, all of them descendants of the same proto-Indo-European root.
In Hungary we don’t even have a separate name for 11 and 12, just 10 + 1 and 10 + 2. But at least we messed up the billions, it’s called ‘milliárd’ and the trillion is ‘billió’. We were so close to making it perfect.
I think that’s fairly normal in Europe, isn’t it? In Germany we have Million, Milliarde, Billion, Billiarde instead of million, billion, trillion and so on, too.
I might be remembering this incorrectly, but a billion in Europe used to be a million million, and we would count in thousands of millions first, as opposed to a billion now being a thousand million.
I can’t remember whether a trillion was a million (old) billion, or whether it was a billion billion.
No, you folks did it correctly. It’s everyone else who messed up: How big is a billion?
1 million squared is a billion. 1 million cubed is a trillion. (1 million)^4 is a quadrillion. And so forth with pent-, sex-, sept-, oct-, etc. Milliard, billiard, trilliard, etc. slot in between the powers of one million.
Add comment