From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Thu Sep 30 22:35:27 1999 X-Digest-Num: 249 Message-ID: <44114.249.1373.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 08:35:27 +0300 From: Robin Turner From: BestATN@aol.com > > In a message dated 9/30/1999 10:11:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > araizen@newmail.net writes: > > > > > de'i li 29/09/99 ti'u li 8:34 la xorxes cusku di'e > > > > The order of the time elements in dates and times should be consistent, all > increasing in size or all decreasing. Thus if a date is given as 29/09/99, > as in the above example, then the time after it should be given as 34:8. > Conversely, if the time is taken as the standard, then the date should be > 99/09/29. > > I prefer the latter order, because all our place-value number systems give > the largest elements first and decrease to the smallest. > > My understanding is that Lojban gives the smallest unit first because it's > easier to leave off the others when they are unnecessary. To me this is not > a compelling reason to be inconsistent, especially in a language which is > consistent to an extreme. > I don't think this is an inconsistency - it's consistent with the rule of "most pertinent comes first." In the time-of-day, the basic level concept (as cognitive linguists like to call it) is the hour; above that, it's the day. Subordinates and superordinates come later. With dates, people often say "I'm coming on the fifth," but less commonly "I'm coming on the fifth of July". For "I'm coming in July" we can use cmene. co'o mi'e robin.