From mark@kli.org Mon Oct 22 06:38:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: mark@kli.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 22 Oct 2001 13:38:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 72450 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2001 13:38:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Oct 2001 13:38:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n29.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Oct 2001 13:38:01 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: mark@kli.org Received: from [10.1.2.51] by n29.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Oct 2001 13:38:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:37:57 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: binary cmavo Message-ID: <9r17fl+6t7e@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <9qno5t+8pfd@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1102 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 162.33.229.2 From: mark@kli.org X-Yahoo-Profile: seqram2 --- In lojban@y..., thinkit8@l... wrote: > i propose two cmavo dedicated to the binary digits 0 and 1. thus > every time you use them, you have to mean the number to be taken as > binary. they would fit fine in the PA selma'o. also, they would mix > with the other numbers to create implied mixed-base numbers. > especially useful in areas that use a power of 2, but also valid in > duodecimal or decimal areas. any comments? > > i'd like them to be monosyballic, but that may be too much to ask. > i'll have to look carefully so we don't have another rei/xei problem > again. I generally agree with xod's answer, but, well, sure! Definitely, we should have cmavo for the binary digits 0 and 1. I propose the following: binary digit 0: no binary digit 1: pa Similarly, I propose a special set of digits 0-9 (hexadecimal). Maybe we should have another set for 0-7 (octal). I'm leaning towards no/pa/re/ci/vo/mu/xa/ze/bi/so for the 0-9 (hex), and the quite distinct no/pa/re/ci/vo/mu/xa/ze for the 0-7 (octal). Monosyllabic, simple... what more could you ask? ~mark