Well Wheelock chapter 15 wants me to be able to count in Latin… kinda fun. But I have a question:
In the appendix where it lists the numbers, it goes up to 20 and then starts jumping by tens. So I’m assuming that the rules up to 20 still apply further on, so for example, where I have:
septendecim
duodeviginti
undeviginti
viginti
do i also have:
septenviginti
duodetriginta
undetriginta
triginta
etc?
I wish they’d have listed up to thirty since the teens are a little odd…
and while I’m at it, why do they do the last two before the next ten, instead of the last one, as we’re used to in roman numerals? I’d expect the two systems to match more closely…
I did notice the viginti unus after I posted this… still curious about the second question…
No, no, no, no, noooooooooo!!!
You have;
20 viginti
21 unus et viginti / viginti unus
…
27 viginti septem / septem et viginti
28 duodetriginta
29 undetriginta
30 triginta
…
hm, it’s frustrating that they don’t clarify that in the book…
but thanks 
sorry to dredge this up from the past, but I’m working on it again…
how does one say 98 or 99?
surely not duodecentum and undecentum?
Yep, duodecentem, undecentum is correct. check out:
http://www.24hourlatin.com/language/numbers.htm<br />
Some things I can do! 
thanks so much!
I find that when I am killing time on the treadmill (it gets really boring after awhile…) I can fill some minutes by practicing my counting in my head… Now I can count to 100 and back down again… although some of those bigger numbers are sure a mouthful!
[quote author=klewlis link=board=3;threadid=574;start=0#5143 date=1062382687]
and while I’m at it, why do they do the last two before the next ten, instead of the last one, as we’re used to in roman numerals? I’d expect the two systems to match more closely…
[/quote]
In Romans inscriptions, you can find XIIX for eighteen (Roman cadastre of Orange, I am an eye-witness), and CCLXIIX “268” (CIL I, 2, 617),
but also p. CXLVIIIS “148 feet 1/2” (CIL I, 2, 1471). Real usage was not so strict.