From pycyn@aol.com Mon May 08 09:07:07 2000
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
Received: (qmail 28352 invoked from network); 8 May 2000 16:07:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 May 2000 16:07:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.1) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 May 2000 16:07:07 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.a5.590fc1f (3872) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:07:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <a5.590fc1f.26484026@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:07:02 EDT
Subject: RE:centripetal/big-endian pattern
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33
From: pycyn@aol.com

Pilch:
>Exactly. To me, little endian dates seem inconsistent with the language
>design of Lojban and consistent with the habits of English.

Yet it is NOT the pattern of the English of most English native Lojbanists; 
Americans are fairly consistent with mdy -- which IS illogical and 
inefficient as well. The Lojban pattern is both logical and efficient (and 
logical because efficient).