Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ND978-0000pH-8I for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:04:23 -0800 Received: from mail-pw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ND973-0000oi-9G for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:04:21 -0800 Received: by pwi9 with SMTP id 9so5210941pwi.26 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:04:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mugvQQr6C7d2zpKbXbUfO6Q+J6Ay/0P32pI0SMdvUL4=; b=ZwHRZKnUH4aIhoa9CyUBeefjbfYl0+LTRGLRo5S+BMyoJdl7nzon0F8WY3R2gaceV9 Pz6iQYiK7wM3B3oRMykhzNRugI5zfFruREeQfERnfVsb/cIFWF8FrRSos9tprmtMoR9b Sc+GLHfPtwYAVF6Xc6MqrXIS3YXt5Od636ZZc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QrCnhJ3Ko2SJDgBe3a2WbT/OLc7Cp9bBwq3fF8uf7NGVKVVcFZerQ7i3GKgvsIGaWi Wc4WIxCTIjqonofmXOXIv4ZnRZOZ/GwrgJjhCFqak/d8oV5DI2HEftjO5hTyOU7zW9RF pp4wx411L+5Qq8ygv9ioTHWzo/VMExaUwPSEo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.6.39 with SMTP id 39mr810738wff.316.1259121850549; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:04:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4b674e5b0911241832r47a234adn48c7f2e4e76f5cee@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b674e5b0911241210h66002baem43a8c62bb34c3d65@mail.gmail.com> <20091124212215.GA13289@sdf.lonestar.org> <4b674e5b0911241832r47a234adn48c7f2e4e76f5cee@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:04:10 +0800 Message-ID: <27513e550911242004l6ca654b0yc2f55ac4ea280455@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Hexadecimal numbers From: Oren To: lojban-beginners Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 2583 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: get.oren@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 3088 > ...but I can't > help but feel weird when I switch from the "consonant, pure vowel" decimal > numbers to the "consonant, diphthong" hexadecimal numbers. I feel the same way, but if it's any consolation, the renowned chinese numbering (read: decimal counting) system, which allows for better number recognition attributed to it's brevity, is actually worse than lojban (it even contains some triphthongs!). Maybe this could be considered lending to increased syllabic distinction, but lojban is pretty good in that department! C= consonant, V= vowel/fluid, N = Nasal VV = diphthong, VV = triphthong, h = vowel separator # jugbau jbobau 0 CVN CV 1 VVV* CV 2 VV CV 3 CVN CV 4 CV CV 5 V CV 6 CVVV CV 7 CV CV 8 CV CV 9 CVVV CV 10 CV CVV 12 CVhV CVV 13 CVhVV CVV 14 CVCVN CVV 15 CVCV CVV *one is sometimes "yi" but for ID numbers (like room numbers, phone numbers) it's "yao" to increase clarity I guess the tones probably aid to chinese memory too, adding another dimension to syllable distinction... alas. mu'o mi'e ku'us On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:32, Cal Stepanian wrote: > Okay then, that makes sense. This is of course a huge improvement over > English or French numbering systems (from personal experience!), but I can't > help but feel weird when I switch from the "consonant, pure vowel" decimal > numbers to the "consonant, diphthong" hexadecimal numbers. > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Minimiscience > wrote: >> >> de'i li 24 pi'e 11 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Cal Stepanian .fy. cusku zoi >> skamyxatra. >> > According to this part of Lojban For Beginners, >> > http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/less5days.html >> > hexadecimal digits haven't been assigned rafsi. Is this a temporary >> > problem, >> > or is this what the designers intended? >> .skamyxatra >> >> Neither (unless your definition of "temporary" includes "until snowmen are >> running GNU HURD in Hell").  As far as I can tell, they simply ran out of >> {rafsi} for the hexadecimal digits, which were comparatively low on the >> "likely >> to be used in {lujvo}" scale.  The direct {rafsi} equivalents of the hex >> digits >> are already assigned to "{darlu}," "{fepni}," "{gacri}," "{djacu}," >> "{preti}," >> and "{vajni}," respectively, and the available {rafsi} that can be formed >> by >> changing the last letters of the digits are scarce and not intuitively >> associated with them. >> >> > I want to use base sixteen eventually for most everything, because it >> > would >> > be so much simpler to convert to and from binary that way >> >> You don't need {rafsi} for that; a multi-digit number is formed by simply >> listing the {cmavo} for the digits.  The {rafsi} are only needed when >> making >> {lujvo} out of words, and I can't think of any instances in which you >> would >> want to do that with hexadecimal digits. >> >> mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun. >> >> -- >> lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki >> >> >> > >