Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOw59-0006Sz-WE for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:58:16 -0700 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOw54-0006Se-Rw for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:58:15 -0700 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so545753fga.0 for ; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=TV7zznOeEQBva1oynM1hp2Bc25+2PW5Ap8+9dVI+qQs=; b=RqwZhUCJg61LA6rC3cus/S5KAnO68si1fQ5b4/vDoqC3nic19Gz+Q3EX+LP0uxlTqI ndevMDVnsd8UrjRGiFgOd94kZzxpVzSTaojVd71SQD3HJhol5/UywEJq6+vm/SCauvla 8PiIh3GzVvquheAfqqABXe6iynZZ6L2zlQinc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=UQOsdkTkebQZl8jqtHNkddQYHvQ6HCDGhvKWr/UtJKk+vYWJGj2vtvtEeaXRJV8Ask sKjq2992DXUHwgxTLEyIUMm6zGC+q9Q2Y4dPQmsD2NVxv5BX0S50XJPoAE0L4wQwv3Gd KZFQnTxL4mWyUx4XBw+xJGPU5wLqDq7qSJ2Zg= Received: by 10.86.98.14 with SMTP id v14mr7348669fgb.74.1217602687504; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.89.11 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560808010758k11c5e6c4p33a6dc2f2f31f477@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:58:07 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Numbercrunching... In-Reply-To: <881752.44213.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <881752.44213.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 759 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 760 On 8/1/08, Tom Gysel wrote: > > 4. li repa pi'e ze pi'e pasoxaso > I guess the difference in knowing whether a string of numbers like > that is a date or time, lies in the last number in this case 'pasoxaso'. > Pasoxaso is 1969, so this should be a date. After all 21:07:1969 > doesn't really exist as a time, we don't have 1969 seconds. But if there > was written 'paso', it would have been a time and definitely no date. > (Right?)(so we can't abbreviate dates to e.g. 21-07-69 ?) Since the context would almost invariably be "de'i li ..." or "ti'u li ...", there probably can't be much confusion between dates and times anyway. More problematic is knowing whether 08-07-06 is a big-endian or a little-endian date. mu'o mi'e xorxes