Re: [lojban] Re: round numbers

[Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>]

On Friday 13 October 2006 17:16, Dmitry wrote:
> I am quite against such idea. Even if all the languages use the same (or
> similar) words both for describing numerical and geometrical roundness,
> it will not be a reason to use cukla namcu, because such suggestion will
> be against of ideas of Lojban. {cukla namcu} should mean "number of
> round/circular type".

We have {xarna'u}, which is a similar calque. i is no more a product of 
imagination than the fifth root of 2 or a googolplex, nor does it have 
anything more to do with imagination than with health (I briefly toyed with 
the idea of calling them {ka'orna'u}, misusing the cmavo as a rafsi).

> For me, it sounds like another name for {pai}, (3.141529...), number,
> that is definitely much more related to circles, than 0,10,20,....
> My proposal for "round number" is
>
> pilji be li pano
>
> Ewww, that's 2 syllables longer than {cukla namcu}. But it much more
> reflects the nature of round number, doesn't it?

A number that's round in another base (e.g. 1458, which is round in base 3) is 
usually not a multiple of 10, and a large enough multiple of 10 (e.g. 
335543930) isn't round.

Pierre