From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Nov 25 09:02:42 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:02:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NDLGL-0005KW-Dn for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:02:42 -0800 Received: from mail-ew0-f224.google.com ([209.85.219.224]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NDLGE-0005I0-8X for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:02:40 -0800 Received: by ewy24 with SMTP id 24so4730411ewy.26 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:02:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=kFrdfQO6+d874WBypYMgFrtjyPlsjooG4YWDABVEQNQ=; b=uMBiIct8TNdZY7seOOKMsxlDctCf7gFzwx8LkmtDJoJJP1jXbubxRvWlkfOPOm65kF BeJl3ruwZ5G9Mj0hv/Emplqr4mUMWbBBR8fc9Awu4iEuIA8CLPMCiqy9lfpxk/osDpR5 QytVs4ZIbCHKvzSGj8t8S7RzMhEgrZez10l2Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=gv/IcnM5bTfmRCtu6sLgym1WlTfwWR4oZolnfXz9rr9JOg5z6LxJH53jWhTtNXjBzR wrJURbe9kAPgnEnwOfkRG8PC1CIIbP1hzeikkUNjDOxQmTitHvWBWKQ2RCU2xPI5JB4+ yKVB/BUrL3m3btCQoLRcLmP5vEjN7mgJ0/+5c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.103.83 with SMTP id j19mr292999ebo.30.1259168545655; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:02:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <27513e550911242004l6ca654b0yc2f55ac4ea280455@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b674e5b0911241210h66002baem43a8c62bb34c3d65@mail.gmail.com> <20091124212215.GA13289@sdf.lonestar.org> <4b674e5b0911241832r47a234adn48c7f2e4e76f5cee@mail.gmail.com> <27513e550911242004l6ca654b0yc2f55ac4ea280455@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:02:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4b674e5b0911250902p2f364350g7bb2474d8ae66eb7@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Hexadecimal numbers From: Cal Stepanian To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502ca90e04ef2047935055e X-archive-position: 2585 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ziphilt@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --00504502ca90e04ef2047935055e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I suppose it depends on whether you want them to sound the same or very different; they each have benefits. I can understand the need to have them sound distinct so that less misunderstandings happen in noisy situations. Mostly, I brought this up to make sure that someone was thinking the way I was! Lojban is damned good compared to other languages, and its goals allow it to be improved with intentions rather than only language drift like in natural languages. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Oren wrote: > > ...but I can't > > help but feel weird when I switch from the "consonant, pure vowel" > decimal > > numbers to the "consonant, diphthong" hexadecimal numbers. > > I feel the same way, but if it's any consolation, the renowned chinese > numbering (read: decimal counting) system, which allows for better > number recognition attributed to it's brevity, is actually worse than > lojban (it even contains some triphthongs!). Maybe this could be > considered lending to increased syllabic distinction, but lojban is > pretty good in that department! > > C= consonant, V= vowel/fluid, N = Nasal > VV = diphthong, VV = triphthong, h = vowel separator > > # jugbau jbobau > > 0 CVN CV > 1 VVV* CV > 2 VV CV > 3 CVN CV > 4 CV CV > 5 V CV > 6 CVVV CV > 7 CV CV > 8 CV CV > 9 CVVV CV > > 10 CV CVV > 12 CVhV CVV > 13 CVhVV CVV > 14 CVCVN CVV > 15 CVCV CVV > > *one is sometimes "yi" but for ID numbers (like room numbers, phone > numbers) it's "yao" to increase clarity > > I guess the tones probably aid to chinese memory too, adding another > dimension to syllable distinction... alas. > > mu'o mi'e ku'us > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:32, Cal Stepanian wrote: > > Okay then, that makes sense. This is of course a huge improvement over > > English or French numbering systems (from personal experience!), but I > can't > > help but feel weird when I switch from the "consonant, pure vowel" > decimal > > numbers to the "consonant, diphthong" hexadecimal numbers. > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Minimiscience > > wrote: > >> > >> de'i li 24 pi'e 11 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Cal Stepanian .fy. cusku zoi > >> skamyxatra. > >> > According to this part of Lojban For Beginners, > >> > > http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/less5days.html > >> > hexadecimal digits haven't been assigned rafsi. Is this a temporary > >> > problem, > >> > or is this what the designers intended? > >> .skamyxatra > >> > >> Neither (unless your definition of "temporary" includes "until snowmen > are > >> running GNU HURD in Hell"). As far as I can tell, they simply ran out > of > >> {rafsi} for the hexadecimal digits, which were comparatively low on the > >> "likely > >> to be used in {lujvo}" scale. The direct {rafsi} equivalents of the hex > >> digits > >> are already assigned to "{darlu}," "{fepni}," "{gacri}," "{djacu}," > >> "{preti}," > >> and "{vajni}," respectively, and the available {rafsi} that can be > formed > >> by > >> changing the last letters of the digits are scarce and not intuitively > >> associated with them. > >> > >> > I want to use base sixteen eventually for most everything, because it > >> > would > >> > be so much simpler to convert to and from binary that way > >> > >> You don't need {rafsi} for that; a multi-digit number is formed by > simply > >> listing the {cmavo} for the digits. The {rafsi} are only needed when > >> making > >> {lujvo} out of words, and I can't think of any instances in which you > >> would > >> want to do that with hexadecimal digits. > >> > >> mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun. > >> > >> -- > >> lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > --00504502ca90e04ef2047935055e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I suppose it depends on whether you want them to sound the same or very dif= ferent; they each have benefits. I can understand the need to have them sou= nd distinct so that less misunderstandings happen in noisy situations. Most= ly, I brought this up to make sure that someone was thinking the way I was!= Lojban is damned good compared to other languages, and its goals allow it = to be improved with intentions rather than only language drift like in natu= ral languages.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Oren <get.oren@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...but I can't
> help but feel weird when I switch from the "con= sonant, pure vowel" decimal
> numbers to the "consonant, diphthong" hexadecimal numbers.
I feel the same way, but if it's any consolation, the renowned ch= inese
numbering (read: decimal counting) system, which allows for better
number recognition attributed to it's brevity, is actually worse than lojban (it even contains some triphthongs!). Maybe this could be
considered lending to increased syllabic distinction, but lojban is
pretty good in that department!

C=3D consonant, V=3D vowel/fluid, N =3D Nasal
VV =3D diphthong, VV =3D triphthong, h =3D vowel separator

# =A0 jugbau =A0jbobau

0 =A0CVN =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CV
1 =A0VVV* =A0 =A0 =A0 CV
2 =A0VV =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CV
3 =A0CVN =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CV
4 =A0CV =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CV
5 =A0V =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 CV
6 =A0CVVV =A0 =A0 =A0CV
7 =A0CV =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 CV
8 =A0CV =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 CV
9 =A0CVVV =A0 =A0 =A0CV

10 CV =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CVV
12 CVhV =A0 =A0 =A0 CVV
13 CVhVV =A0 =A0 CVV
14 CVCVN =A0 =A0CVV
15 CVCV =A0 =A0 =A0CVV

*one is sometimes "yi" but for ID numbers (like room numbers, pho= ne
numbers) it's "yao" to increase clarity

I guess the tones probably aid to chinese memory too, adding another
dimension to syllable distinction... alas.

mu'o mi'e ku'us

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:32, Cal Stepanian <ziphilt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay then, that makes sense. This is of course a huge improvement over=
> English or French numbering systems (from personal experience!), but I= can't
> help but feel weird when I switch from the "consonant, pure vowel= " decimal
> numbers to the "consonant, diphthong" hexadecimal numbers. >
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> de'i li 24 pi'e 11 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Cal Stepania= n .fy. cusku zoi
>> skamyxatra.
>> > According to this part of Lojban For Beginners,
>> > http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/= lojbanbrochure/lessons/less5days.html
>> > hexadecimal digits haven't been assigned rafsi. Is this a= temporary
>> > problem,
>> > or is this what the designers intended?
>> .skamyxatra
>>
>> Neither (unless your definition of "temporary" includes = "until snowmen are
>> running GNU HURD in Hell"). =A0As far as I can tell, they sim= ply ran out of
>> {rafsi} for the hexadecimal digits, which were comparatively low o= n the
>> "likely
>> to be used in {lujvo}" scale. =A0The direct {rafsi} equivalen= ts of the hex
>> digits
>> are already assigned to "{darlu}," "{fepni}," = "{gacri}," "{djacu},"
>> "{preti},"
>> and "{vajni}," respectively, and the available {rafsi} t= hat can be formed
>> by
>> changing the last letters of the digits are scarce and not intuiti= vely
>> associated with them.
>>
>> > I want to use base sixteen eventually for most everything, be= cause it
>> > would
>> > be so much simpler to convert to and from binary that way
>>
>> You don't need {rafsi} for that; a multi-digit number is forme= d by simply
>> listing the {cmavo} for the digits. =A0The {rafsi} are only needed= when
>> making
>> {lujvo} out of words, and I can't think of any instances in wh= ich you
>> would
>> want to do that with hexadecimal digits.
>>
>> mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
>>
>> --
>> lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki
>>
>>
>>
>
>




--00504502ca90e04ef2047935055e--