From lojban@lojban.org Fri Sep 14 18:36:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 01:36:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 48252 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 01:15:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 01:15:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 01:15:17 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (ppp17.net-A.cais.net [205.252.61.17]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8F1FEK92576 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:15:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010914210625.00aacf00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1035@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:12:17 -0400 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Logical Language Group At 04:33 PM 9/14/01 -0700, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: > >In day-month-year, how do you refer to an event happening during a certain > >year? It seems you don't. The lessons avoid this by naming years. So this > >year is {la renonopananc.} and the next year is {la renonorenanc.} and the > >next year is {la djimbab.}, or might as well be, because cmene are not > >analyzable. > >Conversely, of course, in YY-MM-DD, how do you refer to a date? ("This >happened on the 24th.") The answer is tu'o, right? Or indeed, even no >number at all. So: > > This happened on the 24th. This happened in 1971. >YY-MM-DD. fasnu de'i li pi'e pi'e 24 fasnu de'i li 1971 >DD-MM-YY. dasnu de'i li 24 fasnu de'i li pi'e pi'e 1971 > >... and it's already obvious which one would be more useful, I think. > >Woah. In fact, I think {de'i li 1971} is such a big win, and {de'i li pi'e >pi'e 24} is so clean, that I'm prepared to opine here, as with {ka}, that >the existing convention is broken, long live the new convention. Except that, since it IS a change to the baseline (given the written place structure of detri), and cannot be claimed to be an "error", since we knew about the standards when we last went around on the issue before the baseline, you will force us to adopt a procedure for a formal change to the baseline, something I have been strongly avoiding because if we have such, we probably won't have a baseline because lots more changes will be proposed that I have staved off by arguing "baseline". Now maybe we shouldn't be hamstrung by the baseline if enough people want a change, but part of the reason for having a baseline is to hamstring those who would change by fiat. (If you evolve a change through usage, of course, I cannot argue with you). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org