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
>>
>>
>>
>
>