[lojban-beginners] Re: Hexadecimal numbers

[Oren <get.oren@gmail.com>]

> ...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 <ziphilt@gmail.com> 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 <minimiscience@gmail.com>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>