Le mercredi 3 juin 2015 00:35:23 UTC, Spheniscine (la zipcpi) a écrit :
doi .guskant. :
My system isn't the only system that includes "magic letters" in the dates. Take the following character strings, all with a meaning under ISO 8601:
2015-W22
2015-05-31T19:00:17Z
P3Y6M4DT12H30M5S
As I said first, I'm not interested in any convention of the form of sumti in {de'i/ti'u/te'i} clause (sorry for my bad English), and I don't mind if you suggest anything about it unless il will affect my usage of Lojban. In the current case, I was worried about an undesirable modification in grammar, but (.ui) it seems needless anxiety in observing the further messages of the thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/GQ9Mnwieue0/discussion
By the way, you can specify the system more precisely than {I'ySyO'y xi 8601}, for example:
ex1) tete'i I'ySyO'y xi 8601 joi lo sinxa be lo jeftu ...
ex2) ro detri poi pagbu di'e cu temjudri fi I'ySyO'y xi 8601 joi lo sinxa be lo jeftu .i tu'e ...
ex3) ... ti'o fi I'ySyO'y xi 8601 joi lo sinxa be lo jeftu cu temjudri (se'u) ... (though this usage of ti'o is somehow unexpected in CLL.)
and if once it is declared, you don't need to repeat it in the same context, unless you want to mention a date in another format. Also for the other system, you can specify the system as much precisely as you like, with some mentioning like {porsi fa lo sinxa be lo jeftu ce'o lo djedi}, {lo manri be fi la stani joi jimca} (a calendar according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagenary_cycle ), etc. The latter uses names of animals instead of numbers, u'ipei.
Anyway, don't mind my rant for now: observing the current movement in the bpfk-list, I'm rather {u'unmo} for posting that.