Le lundi 1 juin 2015 08:03:51 UTC, guskant a écrit :
I know that the form of the sumti in de'i/ti'u/te'i is indeed your proposal. I mentioned de'i'V series only for letting you know the shortest form is {de'i'u ma}, not {ca de'i li jydy xo}. I don't intend to discuss the current topic for now. Please continue without me.
mu'o
Although I said I don't intend to join the discussion, I change my mind because I observed on bpfk-list a movement toward modifying the grammar around lerfu and numerals.
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/GQ9Mnwieue0/discussion
First, creating a convention for a sumti in {de'i/ti'u/te'i} clause is not at all interest me. If we need, we can always specify the structure and meaning of sumti by a {vede'i/veti'u} clause according to official English definition, or by a {tede'i/teti'u/tete'i} clause according to experimental Lojban definition.
Secondly, removing {pi'e}s in li clause is nonsense. Even though {pi'e} separates digits, it denotes one number, on which carrying may occur across {pi'e} in calculation. For example, {de'i li 2015 pi'e 5 pi'e 31 su'i pi'epi'e 1} should mean the same date as {de'i li 2015 pi'e 6 pi'e 1}. In usual mathematical notation and in ISO_8601, a number is represented in the form "higher column to the left". In the case of date, a number [ny:ly:dy] means [365*nyxipy+366*nyxiky]+[29*lyxity+30*lyxixy+31*lyxizy]+dy, where the bases [365/366] [29/30/31] should vary according to a complicated but unique rule. You may change the order of columns "{vede'i lo drata be I'ySyO'y xi 8601}" if you want.
Thirdly, You don't need selma'o LI if you remove {pi'e}: removing {pi'e} breaks separation of digits on different bases. The resulting string of numerals and lerfu is out of mathematical rule. If you once abandon carrying of calculation, you can use raw lerfu as sumti in arbitrary order: {de'i jydyxi2 joi lyxi5 joi dyxi26 joi nyxi2015}. There are no need of modifying grammar.
Sorry for bothering, but I don't understand the reason for modifying grammar for such an indifferent-to-me matter. I would be in favor of modifying grammar if any more important requirement occurred, though,