ji'i (was: RE: [lojban] Re: Usage deciding

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >xorxes's ji'i is a relative extreme case of deviance. (If I were xorxes
> >I'd use experimental cmavo instead of deviantly reusing cmavo I thought
> >broken.)
> 
> I don't really need a new cmavo. My problem with ji'i is its
> disruptive infixation. I don't believe it will be used as
> defined anyway, as it makes parsing numbers too hard. But given
> the outcry against {reji'ici} I will change to something like
> {ji'ireso'uci} for example, which is impeccably CLL.

Given the general way that the number grammar works, how would you
show the number of significant figures, or the portion of a number
that is approximate?

The official method with ji'i seems a good solution, and your
objection to it seems really to be a more general objection that
the overally magnitude of a number cannot be apprehended until
the entire number has been parsed. Maybe a cmavo to show that
the number is to be read with the digits in increasing order
of magnitude would solve that problem.

--And.