From hfroark@bigmailbox.net Thu Oct 04 14:10:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: hfroark@bigmailbox.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 4 Oct 2001 21:07:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 46953 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2001 21:07:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 4 Oct 2001 21:07:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n24.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Oct 2001 21:10:16 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hfroark@bigmailbox.net Received: from [10.1.10.101] by n24.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Oct 2001 21:10:15 -0000 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 21:10:12 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: periodic hexadecimal reminder Message-ID: <9pij7k+tfie@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011003215951.00da4100@pop.cais.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1797 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 204.211.254.26 From: hfroark@bigmailbox.net "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" wrote: >At 07:41 PM 10/2/01 +0000, hfroark@b... wrote: >>The most radical part of my suggestion is creating a new >>cmavo for use in ju'i to indicate base sixteen. > >Since Lojban usage has not in fact used ju'i much with *any* base values, >it is hard to justify adding more cmavo. The proper way to do this is to >establish usage IN LOJBAN using an ad hoc experimental cmavo which you >define as pano ju'i dau at first use, and then after people come to accept >and use such a word repeatedly, the case is built for adding a word to the >official language after the baseline ends. It's hard to be sure of your first point; It was pointed out to me in another message that "ju'u" is the base marker no "ju'i", as I had written. The draft textbook agrees with my critic in this regard ( http://www.lojban.org/files/reference-grammar/chap18.html ) and I believe that I simply made an error when I copied the word. On the other hand you may have simply been saying that changing bases had not been used very much in Lojban. All I can say to that is wait until someone writes a test in Lojban about computer programming that uses a lot of logical operations; eg, OR, AND, NOT, XOR. Secondarily, I am aware that my proposed new usage will have to be supported by actual usage, but before I actually start using it, I would want to be sure that it will not cause any other problems. Third, I'm not quite sure that you understood what I was suggesting: my cmavo (call it "pa'ai") would not mean "pano ju'u dau"; it would mean "paxa ju'u dau" or, equivalently, "pano ju'u vei vai su'i pa ve'o" or "pano ju'u paxa", using the assumption that the default base is ten on the R-expression of ju'u, unless overridden by another ju'u .