Return-Path: Resent-From: cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin Resent-Message-Id: <9107011747.AA03667@relay1.UU.NET> Message-Id: From: John Cowan Subject: Yet another proposal, about "so'u" To: lojban-list@snark Date: Mon, 4 Jun 90 15:40:54 EDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0] Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 13:11:27 EDT Resent-To: John Cowan Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jul 1 15:52:34 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin A small proposal this time, for disambiguating "su'o": THE CURRENT SYSTEM: Currently, the cmavo "su'o" mostly means "at least", by default "at least one". It can also be used as a pseudo-digit to indicate that digits have been omitted, similar to the use of ellipsis in mathematics (distinct from non-mathematical ellipsis). For example, cipipavopamusosu'o = 3.14159.... PROPOSED CHANGE: Assign another cmavo for use as an ellipsis either on the left or the right side of numbers. "lo'o" is currently unassigned (as of JL12) and resembles the new "li'o" used for ellipsis within quotations. RATIONALE: The use of "at least" to mean "omitted digits" is derived from the idea of "at least one digit omitted". It seems to me that this is making "at least" do too much work. In addition, "su'o" can only be used in this sense to omit digits at the least-significant (right-hand) end. Yet we often want to omit digits at the left end as well; for example, this is the year '90. English orthography uses an apostrophe here rather than an ellipsis mark, but the idea is the same: one or more digits are omitted here, being understood in context. In this style, the year number would be pasosono, or lo'osono. In this particular case, no shortening would be achieved, but quite otherwise for astronomers using the Julian day system, whose base is 1 January 4173 B.C. (by the Gregorian calendar), and who must deal with seven-digit day numbers. -- cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) e'osai ko sarji la lojban