jbovlaste import quantities lang en: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
m (Gleki moved page jbocre: jbovlaste import quantities lang en to jbovlaste import quantities lang en without leaving a redirect: Text replace - "jbocre: ([a-z])" to "$1")
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


thank you
==  units of measurement ==


The regular place structure for standard units of measurement is "x1 is x2 (default 1) foo units in the relevant quality, by standard x3".  {jvsv mitre} is irregular: it has an extra place x3 to indicate the direction of measurement, with the standard in x4.


[http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de/brojbo.gif]
SI units:


''Most definitely, it is very important to distinguish between bet and vet, pe and fe.''
* ampere (electric current): {jvsv xampo}
* candela (luminous intensity): {jvsv delno}


I think it would be best to do this without any vowel-points at all, but unfortunately there aren't enough letters. So we should do it with al few as possible. Your vowels at the end of the word look ugly.
* gram (mass): {jvsv grake}
* kelvin (thermodynamic temperature): {jvsv kelvo}


Here's my proposal:
* litre (volume): {jvsv litce}
* metre (length): {jvsv mitre} (irregular x3 and x4)


;.:same as roman orthography
* mole (amount of substance): {jvsv molro}
* radian (planar angle): {jvsv radno}


;,:same as roman orthography
* second (time duration): {jvsv snidu}
* steradian (solid angle): {jvsv stero}


;':same as roman orthogrophy
Traditional time units:


;a:alef
* second: {jvsv snidu}
* minute: {jvsv mentu}


;b:bet with dagesh
* hour: {jvsv cacra}
* day: {jvsv djedi}


;c:shin
* week: {jvsv jeftu}
* month: {jvsv masti}


;d:dalet
* year: {jvsv nanca}


;e:ayin
There are also words for non-standard units, the words being inherently ambiguous as to what unit is meant.  To allow for the use of subunits instead of fractional parts of the main unit, in addition to the places that standard-unit words have, these have additional places x4, x5, etc. (as many as necessary) to indicate subunit quantities.  {jvsv minli} and {jvsv rupnu} are irregular.


;f:fe without a dagesh
Local units:


;g:gimel
* local area units: {jvsv kramu}
* local long distance units: {jvsv minli}  (x3 and x4 are swapped relative to the regular place structure)


;i:yud
* local major money units: {jvsv rupnu} (no subunit places)
* local mass/weight units: {jvsv bunda}


;j:het
* local minor money units: {jvsv fepni}
* local short length units: {jvsv gutci}


;k:kuf
* local volume units: {jvsv dekpu}


;l:lamed
==  numerical multipliers ==


;m:mem
The regular place structure is "x1 is foo multiple of x2 in dimension/aspect x3 (default units)".  There are no exceptions.


;n:nun
Decimal-based small multiples:


;o:vav with holam
* 10^-1 (deci-): {jvsv decti}
* 10^-2 (centi-): {jvsv centi}


;p:pe with dagesh
* 10^-3 (milli-): {jvsv milti}
* 10^-6 (micro-): {jvsv mikri}


;r:resh
* 10^-9 (nano-): {jvsv nanvi}
* 10^-12 (pico-): {jvsv picti}


;s:samekh
* 10^-15 (femto-): {jvsv femti}
* 10^-18 (atto-): {jvsv xatsi}


;t:tet
* 10^-21 (zepto-): {jvsv zepti}
* 10^-24 (yocto-): {jvsv gocti}


;u:vav with a dot in the middle (I forgot what it's called).
Decimal-based large multiples:


;v:vet without dagesh ''or'' double vav
* 10^1 (deka-): {jvsv dekto}
* 10^2 (hecto-): {jvsv xecto}


;x:khaf (without a dagesh)
* 10^3 (kilo-): {jvsv kilto}
* 10^6 (mega-): {jvsv megdo}


;y:heh
* 10^9 (giga-): {jvsv gigdo}
* 10^12 (tera-): {jvsv terto}


;z:zayin
* 10^15 (peta-): {jvsv petso}
* 10^18 (exa-): {jvsv xexso}


-- Adam
* 10^21 (zetta-): {jvsv zetro}
* 10^24 (yotta-): {jvsv gotro}


----
Binary-based large multiples are made from {jvsv skami} plus the corresponding decimal-based multiple:


The above sample isn't at all meant too seriously - and quite a hip-shot. And for sure, you're right that the ending vowels look ugly.
* 2^10 (kibi-): {jvsv samki'o}
* 2^20 (mebi-): {jvsv samymegdo}


BTW, here's some more info one could choose from: [http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de/GENESIS.RXML]
* 2^30 (gibi-): {jvsv samgi'o}
* 2^40 (tebi-): {jvsv samterto}


A question to both you and Craig ([[jbocre: Estrangela|(Estrangela]]): what about final and initial variants of consonants? Does your transliteration of Lojban use them? Why/why not?
* 2^50 (pebi-): {jvsv sampetso}
* 2^60 (exbi-): {jvsv samxexso}


''Yes of course it does. Hebrew would look quite strange without finals. The only possible problem would be a final "p", but since this is extremely rare in Lojban it doesn't cause much of a problem. When it does occur, you could either put a dagesh in the final fe, or just use a regular pe like in Modern Hebrew. -- Adam''
* 2^70 (zebi-): {jvsv samyzetro}
 
* 2^80 (yobi-): {jvsv samgotro}
No problem with Yiddish transliteration:
 
[http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de/brojboy.gif]
 
.aulun.
 
''Yes, I think Yiddish-style is far and away the best method, but
 
what to do about the vowel pairs?  --[[jbocre: John Cowan|John Cowan]]''
 
''This seems to be quite easy! Here's a sample (following the Book):''
 
[http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de/dipht.gif]
 
''Since in "ii", "iu" etc. and "ua", "ui" etc. the first character has a *consonant* value, there's no need for an initial "shtumer alef" (which has to be used e.g. for ".i"!).''
 
''Because giving "uu" with "tsvey vovn", I'd propose to have "vet" for "v" (with the further need having "dagesh-bet" for "b").''
 
''The Yiddish "ay"/"ey"/"oy" convention should not be used.'' ('''I've changed my opinion - see below ;-)''')
 
''In Yiddish there exists no "schwa", so the "schwa-alef" is a new creation for Lojbanic needs. (One could use "schwa-ayin" as well)  - .aulun.''
 
Strangely enough, I think I would prefer the double-stroke "gershayim" to the single stroke geresh for the Lojban '''''''.  In Hebrew orthography, the single-stroke geresh/apostrophe tends to indicate a modification of a single letter (as in Modern Hebrew Z' for the sound of lojban '''j''' or G' for '''dj''' or Tz' for '''tc'''), or else an abbreviation that's one letter long (a usage which stretches back further in time, as in A', B', etc. for 1, 2,... or 1000, 2000,... (so a number like 3231 would be written G'RL"A], while the double-stroke gershayim is used for abbreviations longer than one letter long or multi-letter numbers (placed always before the last letter).  Somehow, as a mid-word symbol, " seems to look better than ' in Hebrew, though it may seem a little counterintuitive.  Other than that, Yiddish-style is definitely the best choice (though one could find stuff to quibble about, probably).  I've long felt that the closest analog to the Lojban period is the Yiddish "silent aleph", at least at the beginnings of vowel-initial words.  ''--mi'e [[User:Mark Shoulson|.mark.]]''
 
''To be honest, I don't like single stroke geresh very much - yet for the reasons mentioned above (i.e. the specific use of gershayim in modern Hebrew, and Yiddish as well) double-stroke geresh doesn't seem a good solution either. What prevents us to simply use Hebrew "he'/hey" with the restriction that it is only allowed between vowels? I'm accustomed to ''''''' in Latin script, but why stick to it in other transcriptions?''
 
I've put a sample here: [http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de/LOJHEBR.RXML]
 
''For differentiating "oi" and "ui", the latter could be written with vav-dagesh. -- mi'e .aulun.''
 
Remember, I'm the one who likes ''h'' for apostrophe in Latin letters, so I won't squawk too loudly about using heh in Hebrew.  Though ''h'', being an ascending letter, does stand out rather better than Hebrew heh.  Not really a good reason to oppose heh, just something to recall.  I think I still like the double-stroke... *shrug*.  Hmm, I thought you were using kamatz-aleph for ''o'', hence kamatz-aleph-yod vs. erm... I guess it would be shtumer-aleph-vav-yod?  Or just vav-yod?  I think I do like the idea of the full shuruq, now that I think about it.  ''mi'e [[User:Mark Shoulson|.mark.]]''I see in your sample that you're using full Yiddish conventions, including double-yod-kamatz for ''ai''.  Any reason for the change of heart?
 
''Sorry, I feel like I should come to an end with my series of hip-shots ;-( But yes, I now think that it's best keeping as close as possible to only one  convention that fits best (which for sure is the Yiddish one). So I'll be going to redo the above samples: '''ei''' -> shtumer alef-tsvey yudn; '''ai''' -> shtumer alef- komets tsvey yudn; '''oi''' -> shtumer alef-vov-yud; '''ui''' -> melupn vov-yud  - no shtumer alef because of the '''u''' being consonental! (Maybe due to this difference in spelling of '''oi''' and '''ui''' the melupn might not be necessary.)''
 
''It's for this general reason also that I'm still hesitating to replace tsvey vovn by veys/veth which I'd prefer - since the "double-u" seems to be created after the German/Polish '''w''' (= v!) hence not too appropriate with regard to international conventions.''
 
''The problem with '''uu''' still exists (maybe: vov-melupn vov?) -- mi'e .aulun.''
 
Mmm.  A lot to think about.  I also noticed you were going whole-hog with Yiddish, to the extent that '''j''' -> zayin-shin.  That's probably better than the chet that was suggested earlier, but it breaks the one-letter/one-phoneme reading.  As does some of the vowel stuff, I guess.  I caught myself musing about something possibly interesting for '''j''': dagesh-zayin (or maybe dagesh-shin).  It could work!  And incidentally, I'm sort of in favor of dagesh-peh for '''p''' and peh-rafe for '''f'''.  The more clues, the better.  Similarly, a melupm wherever ''possibly'' helpful would not go amiss.  But I have to ponder more about the rest of the vowel stuff.  On the whole, writing it in perfect Yiddish transliteration is not hard to read and looks pretty good, but it feels like breaking some of the elegance of Lojban.  This may or may not be vital: it's only a writing convention.  ''--mi'e [[User:Mark Shoulson|.mark.]]''
 
Uncial was also only a writing convention, as is Tengwar. Go for the elegance. While I do not read Hebrew letters, I agree with mark on everything he said after he stopped mentioning letter names and I started understanding him. Maintain all elegance that is availible! - mi'e. [[jbocre: .kreig.daniyl.|.kreig.daniyl.]]
 
''Meanwhile, I've altered my sample above, and I think that '''uu''' should no longer be a problem (writing it with vov-melupm vov).''
 
''With regard to elegance, I  first thought of going for something like Tengwar in Hebrew (with the vowels consequently written in punctuation only). Yet, like .adam. has pointed out clearly, this doesn't look elegantly in Hebrew. Writing something similar to Hebrew's'' "Lesest�tzen" ('immoth-hakkriah; matres lectionis) ''style doesn't seem appropriate for Lojban, or at least pretty sophisticated. Also, one cannot achieve Hebrew's frail elegance since e.g. Lojban doesn't have finals '''n, m, ts, x ...''' except in cmene, so the endings wouldn't look very pleasant anyway. So, repentantly, I came to mame-loshn script that indeed looks somewhat fleshy-heavy compared to Hebrew, but it fits best of all. (BTW, it's also for its heavy ductus that I still keep rejecting Tengwar '''Beleriand''' mode with all the vowels written out) -- mi'e .aulun.''
 
Don't be so hard on yourself.  Personally, I think a Yiddish-style orthography is really quite nice and "right" for Lojban.  Vowels can be relegated to pure diacriticals in languages where they carry the semantic weight differently, not in Lojban.  I actually find the Yiddish-style rather nice on the page and not terribly hard to read.  (it may actually help that I don't know Yiddish very much, so I don't have native-language expectations getting in the way).  --mi'e mark.
 
I've been thinking more about this now.  Using '''all''' of the orthographic conventions of Yiddish (kamatz-aleph for ''o'', zayin-shin for ''j'', double-yod with shtumer-aleph but ayin without, etc) will give you something that's not unfamiliar-looking to Yiddish-reading eyes and will be probably pretty decent... but is it Lojban?  It's basically like proposing an "English alphabet orthography" for Lojban in which we write "ee mee nelshee loy shmavo zhoy geesmoo geeheh tahdnee wee la lozhban."  I mean... yeah, it's okay, it fits the conventions of English... but it isn't really Lojban.  On the other hand, go too far off and it looks weird in other ways.  Mustn't be blinded by pretty familiarity and similarity to something else, I guess.  Hmm.  I still think full-letter vowels are a necessity: vowel-points are okay for Hebrew, where vowels are not on the same level as consonants when it comes to determining meaning, but not for Lojban (though one might argue that Devanagari proves that's wrong).  Well, think about it.  ''--mi'e mark.''
 
''I don't see the whole issue too seriously, since IMO why at all be looking for a non-latin script for Lojban! And still again: for some special purposes, it's nice to have it more "romantic" and use other scripts - and just play around a bit adjusting or inventing those scripts. But, if there really were to choose a different font like Hebrew, Tengwar or even Hiragana, it wouldn't be anything else than just a matter of habitude getting familiar with one or another convention and after some time, nobody would be asking if it really were "Lojban" or not - even with regard to your English example :-)''
 
''In the eyes of someone unfamiliar with  e.g. the Hebrew script, even a Lojban text would be nothing but Hebrew etc., a Mongolian text written in cyrillic characters seems to be Russian to someone who doesn't read Russian, and even people reading Chinese Hanzi will hesitate for a while when coming across with old Vietnamese texts written in 13th century "chu Nom" (an adaptation of Chinese "chu Han" to fit with Vietnamese phonology).''
 
''On the other hand, nobody familiar with latin script will ever mistake a, say, Turkish or Finnish or German text for Latin or English etc.''
 
''Also, the matter of scripts and orthographic convention is not a static one: each language is developing and their scripts are comparable to suits which  - after some time - no longer would fit. Others were taylored badly from the beginning (like the very beautiful scripts for the Japanese language). Still others, although custom-made like Latin scripts for Rumanian or Turkish, are no longer up to date in our world of internet compared e.g. to the Roman Uighur script which is pure ASCII.'' -- mi'e .aulun.
 
--------------------
 
Here's my proposal (mi'e filip.), based on my proposed [[jbocre: Arabic Orthography|Arabic Orthography]]:
 
[http://shavian.org/lojban/lojban-xebro.png]
 
(Apologies for the half-rendered vowel points; the version of IE I used to display this apparently doesn't put them underneath consonants which have ''dagesh'' or ''rafe'' attached.)
 
It seems to be pretty similar to the scheme .aulun. used right at the top, with vowels as points (though ''sheva'' is strictly '''y''' and isn't used beneath consonants which have no associated vowel). It uses ''qamats'' for '''o''' on the model of Yiddish, rather than ''holam'', so that all vowel points are beneath the consonants. Like the Arabic scheme, it uses ''`ayin'' as a null carrier for diphthongs. It uses ''gershayim'' for comma and '''''''''alef'' for dot.
 
I'm not sure whether to use final-form consonants, especially since Lojban words tend to be vowel-final so the consonant isn't the last thing in the word... and consonant-final ''cmene'' are followed by a pause, which if written with '''''''''alef'' looks rather funny since you'd have a final-form consonant followed by another letter.
 
I couldn't find anything useful for '''j''' so I picked ''tsadi'', more or less at random. Oh, and I use ''khaf (with rafe)'' rather than ''het'' for '''x''', for symmetry with '''k''' and the '''b/v''' and '''p/f''' pairs.
 
OK, I'll bite the question no-one's asked yet>> Why do these proposals use tsere (which in Sefardic Hebrew is a sound like lojbanic "ei") instead of segol, which is exactly lojbanic "e"?  ''(c)het'' seems less confusing than ''khaf'' for '''x''', and ''qof'' for '''k'''. -- [[jbocre: xwaver|xwaver]]

Latest revision as of 15:33, 23 March 2014

units of measurement

The regular place structure for standard units of measurement is "x1 is x2 (default 1) foo units in the relevant quality, by standard x3". {jvsv mitre} is irregular: it has an extra place x3 to indicate the direction of measurement, with the standard in x4.

SI units:

  • ampere (electric current): {jvsv xampo}
  • candela (luminous intensity): {jvsv delno}
  • gram (mass): {jvsv grake}
  • kelvin (thermodynamic temperature): {jvsv kelvo}
  • litre (volume): {jvsv litce}
  • metre (length): {jvsv mitre} (irregular x3 and x4)
  • mole (amount of substance): {jvsv molro}
  • radian (planar angle): {jvsv radno}
  • second (time duration): {jvsv snidu}
  • steradian (solid angle): {jvsv stero}

Traditional time units:

  • second: {jvsv snidu}
  • minute: {jvsv mentu}
  • hour: {jvsv cacra}
  • day: {jvsv djedi}
  • week: {jvsv jeftu}
  • month: {jvsv masti}
  • year: {jvsv nanca}

There are also words for non-standard units, the words being inherently ambiguous as to what unit is meant. To allow for the use of subunits instead of fractional parts of the main unit, in addition to the places that standard-unit words have, these have additional places x4, x5, etc. (as many as necessary) to indicate subunit quantities. {jvsv minli} and {jvsv rupnu} are irregular.

Local units:

  • local area units: {jvsv kramu}
  • local long distance units: {jvsv minli} (x3 and x4 are swapped relative to the regular place structure)
  • local major money units: {jvsv rupnu} (no subunit places)
  • local mass/weight units: {jvsv bunda}
  • local minor money units: {jvsv fepni}
  • local short length units: {jvsv gutci}
  • local volume units: {jvsv dekpu}

numerical multipliers

The regular place structure is "x1 is foo multiple of x2 in dimension/aspect x3 (default units)". There are no exceptions.

Decimal-based small multiples:

  • 10^-1 (deci-): {jvsv decti}
  • 10^-2 (centi-): {jvsv centi}
  • 10^-3 (milli-): {jvsv milti}
  • 10^-6 (micro-): {jvsv mikri}
  • 10^-9 (nano-): {jvsv nanvi}
  • 10^-12 (pico-): {jvsv picti}
  • 10^-15 (femto-): {jvsv femti}
  • 10^-18 (atto-): {jvsv xatsi}
  • 10^-21 (zepto-): {jvsv zepti}
  • 10^-24 (yocto-): {jvsv gocti}

Decimal-based large multiples:

  • 10^1 (deka-): {jvsv dekto}
  • 10^2 (hecto-): {jvsv xecto}
  • 10^3 (kilo-): {jvsv kilto}
  • 10^6 (mega-): {jvsv megdo}
  • 10^9 (giga-): {jvsv gigdo}
  • 10^12 (tera-): {jvsv terto}
  • 10^15 (peta-): {jvsv petso}
  • 10^18 (exa-): {jvsv xexso}
  • 10^21 (zetta-): {jvsv zetro}
  • 10^24 (yotta-): {jvsv gotro}

Binary-based large multiples are made from {jvsv skami} plus the corresponding decimal-based multiple:

  • 2^10 (kibi-): {jvsv samki'o}
  • 2^20 (mebi-): {jvsv samymegdo}
  • 2^30 (gibi-): {jvsv samgi'o}
  • 2^40 (tebi-): {jvsv samterto}
  • 2^50 (pebi-): {jvsv sampetso}
  • 2^60 (exbi-): {jvsv samxexso}
  • 2^70 (zebi-): {jvsv samyzetro}
  • 2^80 (yobi-): {jvsv samgotro}
Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=jbovlaste_import_quantities_lang_en&oldid=92193"