Re: binary cmavo

[mark@kli.org]

--- In lojban@y..., thinkit8@l... wrote:
> i propose two cmavo dedicated to the binary digits 0 and 1. thus 
> every time you use them, you have to mean the number to be taken 
as 
> binary. they would fit fine in the PA selma'o. also, they would 
mix 
> with the other numbers to create implied mixed-base numbers. 
> especially useful in areas that use a power of 2, but also valid 
in 
> duodecimal or decimal areas. any comments?
> 
> i'd like them to be monosyballic, but that may be too much to ask. 

> i'll have to look carefully so we don't have another rei/xei 
problem 
> again.

I generally agree with xod's answer, but, well, sure! Definitely, 
we should have cmavo for the binary digits 0 and 1. I propose the 
following:

binary digit 0: no
binary digit 1: pa

Similarly, I propose a special set of digits 0-9 (hexadecimal). 
Maybe we should have another set for 0-7 (octal). I'm leaning 
towards no/pa/re/ci/vo/mu/xa/ze/bi/so for the 0-9 (hex), and the 
quite distinct no/pa/re/ci/vo/mu/xa/ze for the 0-7 (octal). 
Monosyllabic, simple... what more could you ask?

~mark