From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Sat Dec 07 08:00:59 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 07 Dec 2002 08:00:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KhNv-0004A9-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 08:00:55 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gB7G7DG9011447 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 10:07:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gB7G7DUb011446 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 10:07:13 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 10:07:13 -0600 From: Jordan DeLong To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] "2moi" crap (was Re: Aesthetics) Message-ID: <20021207160713.GB11095@allusion.net> References: <20021207071425.GA713@allusion.net> <20021207100045.A91480-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021207100045.A91480-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 3217 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 10:37:10AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > Also I can't *stand* crap like "2moi". I see it and read "two moi", > > I can't read it remoi. >=20 > That's just cause you haven't internalized the numbers yet. Rest assured, > science and the accounting books in "Lojbanistan" are not done with two- > and three-letter numerical cmavo. Yes I have internalized the numbers; that's the problem. I've been speaking english for many years. > Using the cmavo, even though the CLL does it, is like the arbitrary > English habit of spelling out numbers less than "fifteen", but using > digits for numbers over 16. At some point, for numbers large enough to be > unwieldy, even the most devoted cmavo-lover must break down and use > digits. But at what threshold? Note, however, that I mind things like "li 12312.0012" far less than this "2moi" crap. The former is truely for what you claim---shorting things when writing them because we're dealing with long numbers. The latter is just lame; "re" is not harder to write than "2", and it is *much* easier to read. No one will ever need to write "12312.0012moi", so the long-number argument is bogus when applied to it. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE98hywDrrilS51AZ8RAruBAKDPEsHKlHG7x1RG264Juwj5IL/+jACdEeBC kcQAI73Bxp0jlMBeSuN0oJk= =ufXe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6--