Alphabetical Order
This post was originally published on March 02, 2007. It has been modified from its original form.
Today’s Straight Dope answers the question, “Why is the alphabet in alphabetical order?” I had meant to write about this before, but I forgot about it until now — and since I haven’t posted in a while, I might as well fill some space.
The venerable Cecil Adams writes,
Why is the alphabet in any (never mind some particular) prescribed order? Obvious (to me) answer: to make it easier for kids to memorize. It’s working, too. Notwithstanding its inscrutable origins, ABC order as we know it now has survived more or less intact for upwards of 3,000 years. …
There’s no obvious reason ABC is better than any other order.
I thought of this when I realized alphabetical sorting isn’t any different than numerical sorting. Consider that each letter can be thought of as a number in base 27, as is often done in simple encoding schemes: 1 is A, 26 is Z.
| RANCID | 18, 1, 14, 3, 9, 4 |
| APOPLECTIC | 1, 16, 15, 16, 12, 5, 3, 20, 9, 3 |
| ROTUND | 18, 15, 20, 21, 14, 4 |
| CANDOR | 3, 1, 14, 4, 15, 18 |
| APTEROUS | 1, 16, 20, 5, 18, 15, 21, 19 |
Now pad each to the same length by appending 0s on the right:
| RANCID | 18, 1, 14, 3, 9, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0 |
| APOPLECTIC | 1, 16, 15, 16, 12, 5, 3, 20, 9, 3 |
| ROTUND | 18, 15, 20, 21, 14, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0 |
| CANDOR | 3, 1, 14, 4, 15, 18, 0, 0, 0, 0 |
| APTEROUS | 1, 16, 20, 5, 18, 15, 21, 19, 0, 0 |
Now you can sort in numerical ascending order:
| 1, 16, 15, 16, 12, 5, 3, 20, 9, 3 | APOPLECTIC |
| 1, 16, 20, 5, 18, 15, 21, 19, 0, 0 | APTEROUS |
| 3, 1, 14, 4, 15, 18, 0, 0, 0, 0 | CANDOR |
| 18, 1, 14, 3, 9, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0 | RANCID |
| 18, 15, 20, 21, 14, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0 | ROTUND |
Of course, this is essentially what a computer is doing.