From pycyn@aol.com Mon May 08 11:19:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15352 invoked from network); 8 May 2000 18:17:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 May 2000 18:17:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo19.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.9) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 May 2000 18:17:54 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.64.2813af7 (4316) for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 14:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <64.2813af7.26485ec9@aol.com> Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:17:45 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Lojban / Most translated Web Page To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 5/8/00 7:17:51 AM CST, phm@a2e.de writes: << The structure of lojban tanru is like yyyy-mm-dd: central part in the end, delimiting peripherals prepended (or elided) as far as necessitated by the context.>> Well, that is judgmental; why is the day number the modified and the year the modifier? Because that same day number will come round again? And the year picks out a member of the sequence of those dates? But, of course, the year is also a sequence of days -- and a more natural one than the sequence of May 8's -- and the date then picks a subsequence and then an individual, a perfectly reasonable sort of modifier-modifed structure, too. In short, this particular analogy does not seem to be decisive, since it can be made to cut either way (though I think the dmy version is more plausible). <> While I will buy the historical claim, the move to Lojban -- and the move within Lojban -- make no sense to me at all, quite aside from the issue of what all this has to do with tanru. It is good to see that we agree (I think) about what a single number in the date slot means (day); we disagree how most lojbanically to get there from a full date.