From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Aug 08 19:11:17 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52)
	id 1E2Ja8-0007BE-Ik
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:11:08 -0700
Received: from phma.hn.org ([216.189.113.165] helo=ixazon.dynip.com)
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52)
	id 1E2Ja6-0007B6-Op
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:11:08 -0700
Received: from [192.168.25.135] (margay.ixazon.lan [192.168.25.135])
	by ixazon.dynip.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6C6CBDC5
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Mon,  8 Aug 2005 22:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <42F81081.2030508@phma.hn.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:10:09 -0400
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.hn.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: ji'i
References: <737b61f30508081808767b7b5b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <737b61f30508081808767b7b5b@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--)
X-archive-position: 10322
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: phma@phma.hn.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Chris Capel wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> I've decided to start reading Alice in lojban as a way to learn it
> (along with a flash-card program). To my surprise, the second bridi
> already contained a usage that appears to go against CLL, using {ji'i}
> in the middle of a string of digits. The CLL sense (in which Broca on
> IRC regularly uses it) is to convey that the following digits are
> approximate, and the preceeding more exact. However, the sense that
> it's used ({i abuboi paji'ireroi sutra zgana le cukta poi le mensi cu
> tcidu}), it seems to want to split up the two digits around it into
> two separate numbers, establishing the bounds of an approximate range.
> xorxes attests to this usage. Which is more common? Which is more
> useful? It seems that the BPFK have proposed to change the definition.
> "Number subgrammar", authored by xorxes, directly explains his
> non-standard usage. Otherwise, la alis. should probably be fixed.
> 
> I can see where the standard usage would be more useful in stating
> scientific measurements, as it could easily delineate where the
> significant digits stop. The range usage, however, would be difficult
> to use with large or precise numbers, as it would require stating many
> digits twice (as in, {pamuxapino ji'i pamuxapire}). On the other hand,
> for many colloquial uses, usually with only one or two significant
> digits, the range ugage could well be more intuitive and useful (as
> attested to by its spontaneous (to my knowledge) appearance).

An approximate range is properly specified by using {ji'i} with some 
word from BIhI. {ji'i} alone should not be used so.

phma


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.