From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Dec 09 07:56:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 9 Dec 2002 15:56:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 22361 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2002 15:56:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2002 15:56:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2002 15:56:02 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LQGI-00017X-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:56:02 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LQGD-00017C-00; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:55:57 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:55:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LQG6-000171-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:55:50 -0800 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.38] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD16F3800CC; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 10:56:06 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: rei (was: RE: Re: More stuff Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:55:41 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.38] X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted X-archive-position: 3343 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: raganok@intrex.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: raganok@intrex.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out >> > >You are likely right about the lack of redundancy, but (a) it is >> > >unlikely to be a frequent problem, given that word recognition uses >> > >pragmatic as well as phonetic clues, >> > >> > On the contrary, it has already been a problem. TLI Loglan had it >> > with their numbers (which are ni ne to te fo fe so se vo ve), which >> > Bob Chassell and others had problems with, so I made the Lojban set >> > what it is now - yet people object to re/rei. >> >> s/people/thinkit/ >I and, I infer, Craig, think the objection is a good one. The other >digit cmavo are assigned maximally distinct forms, so replacing {rei} >with {xei} would be consistent with the principle behind the other >digits. I realize that Tinkit is hex's only fan, but Lojban is >designed to accommodate hex fans (& I myself am quite pleased that >there are words for 'ten, eleven, dozen'). Indeed. When referring to 13 items, I am more likely to say "jau datci" than "paci datci"; but 16 for me is paxa, since I really am using decimal there.