# Ordinal numbers ты́сячный and up



## wonlon

Numbers are really complex.

(only ты́сячный and other ordinals of it for the time being)

Books only list the ordinal numbers, but do not tell the rules how they are formed, or just too rough: "formed from cardinal numbers".

So how do I go up from the 3000th to 13,000th and higher? What is (are) the rules?
Are they all one word?



1000ты́сяча*ты́сячный
*2000две ты́сячи
*двухты́сячный*3000*?*4000*?*5000*?*6000*?*7000*?*8000*?
*9000*?*10000*?*11000*?*12000*?*13000*?*


----------



## Maroseika

Yes, they all are one word and consist of the cardinal in Gen. + тысячный:
трехтысячный
тринадцатитысячный 
пятидесятисемитысячный 
двухсоттысячный
семисотпятидесятитысячный

The only exception is девяносто, it is used in Nom.:
девяностотысячный (cf. девяностолетний)
девятисотдевяностодевятитысячный.


----------



## ahvalj

трёхтысячный, четырёхтысячный, пятитысячный, шеститысячный, семитысячный, восьмитысячный, девятитысячный, десятитысячный, одиннадцатитысячный, двенадцатитысячный, тринадцатитысячный

13456 — тринадцать тысяч четыреста пятьдесят шестой


----------



## wonlon

What about stress?
Fixed on *ты *of* ты́сячный*?


----------



## wonlon

ahvalj said:


> трёхты́сячный, четырёхты́сячный



Where should I place the stress? ё or ы?


----------



## ahvalj

The main stress yes, and the additional stress is on one of the syllables of the first element (we had a thread about this some time ago — something related to ё in unstressed syllables).


----------



## ahvalj

wonlon said:


> Where should I place the stress? ё or ёы?


The main stress on ы, the additional (weaker) one on ё.


----------



## wonlon

See here.

_ Numbers that consist of a numeral and the noun тысяча make  single-words ordinal numerals. These are compound (double-root) words in  which the first part is a *Prepositional *form of the numeral, e.g.  двухтысячный. The hundreds are formed the same way: двухсотый.         


_I think it is wrong.
It should be genitive, right?


----------



## ahvalj

wonlon said:


> See here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _                                                       Numbers that consist of a numeral and the noun тысяча make  single-words ordinal numerals. These are compound (double-root) words in  which the first part is a *Prepositional *form of the numeral, e.g.  двухтысячный. The hundreds are formed the same way: двухсотый.
> 
> _I think it is wrong.
> It should be genitive, rigth?



Yes, of course it is genitive, but in these cases they practically don't differ (they have become identical casually, for phonetic reasons: say -х in the Genitive is the ancient -som, while in the Prepositional is the ancient -su — «трёх» comes from both "trisom" and "trisu").


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> The only exception is девяносто, it is used in Nom.:
> девяностотысячный (cf. девяностолетний)
> девятисотдевяностодевятитысячный.



This «-о-» is better to regard as a connecting vowel, like in «сенокос» (though etymologically they both are not, this was very long ago).


----------



## wonlon

ahvalj said:


> Yes, of course it is genitive, but in these cases they practically don't differ (they have become identical casually, for phonetic reasons: say -х in the Genitive is the ancient -som, while in the Prepositional is the ancient -su — «трёх» comes from both "trisom" and "trisu").



Well, but it is not двухст*ах*тысячный, it is двухсоттысячный.


----------



## ahvalj

wonlon said:


> Well, but it is not двухст*ах*тысячный, it is двухсоттысячный.



Yes, you are right. Then the genitive without compromises ;-)


----------



## wonlon

ahvalj said:


> Yes, you are right. Then the genitive without compromises ;-)



Wait, wait. There is one.




Maroseika said:


> The only exception is девяносто, it is used in Nom.:
> девяностотысячный (cf. девяностолетний)
> девятисотдевяностодевятитысячный.



 Hope that there is no more. Numbers are really complex.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> Hope that there is no more. Numbers are really complex.


Yes, I beleive there is no more, and even this is not an exception actually, because the very word девяносто is and "exception", being constructed quite differently, as you can see. I'm not sure -o- is a connecting vowel there, like ajvalj stated, but in fact it doesn't matter a lot. Just remember that девяносто- dosn't change in the compound words (девяностолетний, девяностометровый).


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> I'm not sure -o- is a connecting vowel there, like ajvalj stated


There are no connecting vowels at all in the etymological perspective, but the -о- in compound words has become a connecting vowel. As far as I can judge, «девяносто-» in compounds behaves exactly like «сено-».


----------



## Maroseika

ahvalj said:


> This «-о-» is better to regard as a connecting vowel, like in «сенокос» (though etymologically they both are not, this was very long ago).


 
I'm not sure, but looks like this is not a connecting vowel or interfix, but part of the stem:
 § 775. В качество интерфикса в сложных и суффиксально­сложных прилагательных выступают: ...3) после основ числительных, кроме собирательных, девяносто и сто, - интерфиксы ­и­, ­ух­, ­ёх­ и ­а­ (фонемат. |и|, |ух|, |ох|, |а|), омонимичные флексиям род. п. числительных: двухтомный, трехэтажный, десятиметровый...

And I really can hardly admit the same interfixous function of -o- in столетний, стометровый.  

On the other hand, they suppose such compound numerals do not include cardinal in Genitive, but just a stem provided with an interfix, homonymous to a Genitive flexion.

Anyway, for the practical use it doesn't matter, of course.


----------



## ahvalj

The connecting vowel itself is etymologically a part of the stem, and in о/е-neutra it is still pretty transparent. «О» in «сто-» simply has the same origin as «о» in «сено-», and «о» in «девяносто» either coincided with it phonetically (if this word originates from the indo-european newenHk'mtH) or has been remodelled after it (if this word comes from something like «девять на ста»); in any case in the modern language they behave identically. 

The interfixes are just a more general term for anything that is not a plain suffix, so connecting vowels are a subset of the interfixes.


----------

