From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 15 11:58:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 18:58:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 86651 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 17:01:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 17:01:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 17:01:11 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.127.4255dad (4596) for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <127.4255dad.28d4e355@aol.com> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:01:09 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_127.4255dad.28d4e355_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_127.4255dad.28d4e355_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/14/2001 9:13:28 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 nicholas@uci.edu writes: > >And the whole point is that we are much more likely to want to talk abou= t > >a day in this month than a year all by itself, >=20 > ??!! >=20 > You people really thought that?! >=20 > I'm speechless. >=20 > So, I'm unlikely to say I was born in 1971. I am far likelier to say I wa= s > born on the 29th. Right. >=20 No, but you're more likely to talk about what you're doing next week than=20 about when you were born. Or about next week than the Crusades, for that=20 matter. <> Well, {Pavoso Renanc} isn't someone's (or something's) name for > starters. (a) Says who? A name's a name for anything I please. (b) If I wanted Glorking for dates... Whatever. But even glorking is better than a broken standard> Well, {Pavoso} is not a cmene is all I meant. <> The harder on is to tell that something takes=A0 place this October. {li pi'e pano}. Next?> OK, not so hard, though longer than the year case even in DDMMCCYY Good advice and essentially what has been done historically with the=20 antecedents of {pi'e} back to Babylon. --part1_127.4255dad.28d4e355_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/14/2001 9:13:28 PM Central Daylight Time, nicholas@u= ci.edu writes:


>And the whole point i= s that we are much more likely to want to talk about
>a day in this month than a year all by itself,

??!!

You people really thought that?!

I'm speechless.

So, I'm unlikely to say I was born in 1971. I am far likelier to say I = was
born on the 29th. Right.


No, but you're more likely to talk about what you're doing next week th= an about when you were born.  Or about next week than the Crusades, fo= r that matter.

<> Well, {Pavoso Renanc} isn't someone's (or something's) name fo= r
> starters.

(a) Says who? A name's a name for anything I please. (b) If I wanted
Glorking for dates... Whatever. But even glorking is better than a brok= en
standard>

Well, {Pavoso} is not a cmene is all I meant.

<> The harder on is to tell that something takes=A0 place this Oc= tober.

{li pi'e pano}. Next?>

OK, not so hard, though longer than the year case even in DDMMCCYY

<And btw, the only sensible thing to say about pi'e, and still keep = it with
months and days (which we want to), is that it represents "parts". It
cannot be just "variable number bases". Variable number bases implies t= hat
digit n is number base A, and digit m is number base B; not digit n is
number base A, and digit m is number base B for numbers not rhyming wit= h
"ember", and C for numbers you can eat lobsters doing. Variable number
bases imply arithmetic that makes sense. That's not the case for {pi'e}= ,
so let's just say the definition of {pi'e} shifted the minute it was
applied to months, and leave it at that.>

Good advice and essentially what has been done historically with the an= tecedents of {pi'e} back to Babylon.

--part1_127.4255dad.28d4e355_boundary--