Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000507035132.00aae410@127.0.0.1>
To: lojban@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: <20000506212358.71572.qmail@hotmail.com>
From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 03:54:48 -0400
Subject: Re: [lojban] Lojban / Most translated Web Page
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1555
Lines: 35

At 02:23 PM 05/06/2000 -0700, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>It is not very clear to me what status the recommendation
>to use DD;MM;YYYY has in Lojban. The reverse order is equally
>grammatical and just as easy to understand. It is also
>unambiguous, because the 4 digits of the year make it clear
>which part is the year. So:
>
>{li 2000;05;07} can be nothing but May 7th of this year,
>same as {li ;05;07} and {li ;;07}. (I would assume that
>elisions default to current.)
>
>Similarly {li 07;05;2000}, {li 07;05;} and {li 07;;}.
>
>Since there is no possible confusion, there doesn't seem
>to be any need to exclude either one as a possibility.

This approach would require the elisions to be marked with those "pi'e" 
semicolons.  It is not as if such conventions could not work; rather it is 
not in the book (or any Lojban material) that way.  Would a different 
convention be a baseline change?  Would it contradict anything in the Book?

lojbab
----
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:  http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3555/3/_/17627/_/957685939/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com