Message-Id: <9201281858.AA30626@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 1992 13:56:20 EST
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Subject:      Counting and so on
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  Chris Handley's message of Tue, 28 Jan 1992 09:19:01 GMT+1200
Status: RO

   Date:         Tue, 28 Jan 1992 09:19:01 GMT+1200
   From: Chris Handley <CHandley%GANDALF.OTAGO.AC.NZ@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>

   Hi All

[...stuff deleted...]

   Hence my vote is for some way of distinguishing the positions of
   digits in a string so that large numbers can be assimilated easily.
   This would also mean that I could distinguish between a string of
   digits and a number or break a 'nameber' up in different ways -
   there is a big difference between 'Pennsylvania 64 thousand' and
   Pennsylvania 64 oh oh oh for those of you that can remember that far
   back.

Would you accept the current cmavo for the "numeric comma", {ki'o}?  Used
without sufficient digits following, it implies (by default) three zeroes,
otherwise it's a way of breaking up larger numbers (some MEXican who knows
better, please correct if I'm wrong).  Thus, in "Pennsylvania Six, Five
Thousand" (or Pennsylvania 6-5000) (the correct line, I think), the last
part would simply be "muki'o".  And a number like 186,283 could be
"pabixaki'o rebici".  In breaking up non-numeric numbers, like a phone
number, people would likely use the complex base point, {pi'e}.  So, the
phone number for LLG (703-385-0273) would likely be given as "zenocipi'e
cibimupi'e norezeci".  'Course, your audience would have to know not to try
to type the {pi'e} on the phone dial, just as you have to know not to try
to dial the dashes.  In a pinch, you can always leave them out.

This sound good to you?  Does it conform to the Lojban Central conventions?

~mark (shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu)