From arntrich@stud.ntnu.no Fri Jul 06 17:29:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arntrich@stud.ntnu.no X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 7 Jul 2001 00:29:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 16408 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2001 00:29:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Jul 2001 00:29:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO due.stud.ntnu.no) (129.241.56.71) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Jul 2001 00:29:13 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by due.stud.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF68717A89 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 02:29:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jeeves.stud.ntnu.no (jeeves [129.241.56.14]) by due.stud.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4A417A72 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 02:29:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (arntrich@localhost) by jeeves.stud.ntnu.no (8.10.0.Beta12/8.10.0.Beta12) with ESMTP id f670TBo13132 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 02:29:11 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: jeeves.stud.ntnu.no: arntrich owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 02:29:11 +0200 (MET DST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Times of Day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-10 From: Arnt Richard Johansen > (a) Should cmene for hours be mentioned? Or should we just make Lojban > 24-hour and be done with it? Personally I think the 24-hour solution is more intuitive and less confusing. But obviously I'm biased, since I come from a culture where the 24-hour time system is much more common than in anglophone countries. mu'o mi'e tsali