I do not really see the pattern in this series. It seems to be ("-y'au",
"-y'ei", "-y'ai"), but I am not sure why these suffixes were chosen, nor
do I understand how the first letter was chosen, nor why you stopped where
you did.

I have long thought that we should go up to twenty-three because
base-twenty-four is common (military time) and it is not too many (unlike
perhaps base-sixty).

Comment #2: Re: Pattern

Curtis W Franks (Sat Sep 26 17:33:18 2020)

krtisfranks wrote: > I do not really see the pattern in this series. It seems to be ("-y'au", > "-y'ei", "-y'ai"), but I am not sure why these suffixes were chosen, nor > do I understand how the first letter was chosen, nor why you stopped where > you did. > > I have long thought that we should go up to twenty-three because > base-twenty-four is common (military time) and it is not too many (unlike > perhaps base-sixty). Actually, what I wanted to do was to generate some sort of math-based algorithm that would allow for the bijective generation of a digit word for every nonnegative integer according to the mathematical properties of that actual number, so that one does not need to memorize an abritrary list but can actually construct the meaning of the word from the word itself (sequence of lerfu), even if one is not familiar with that particular word; my preference would be to also single out things such as the primes and other important integer classes (including 0 and 1 being unique) in some way, either simultaneously or in accordance with a prioritization scheme, or allowing for different words to mean the same number according to current usage and context (so that the relegant propertied are specified; this would lose bijectivity or would require multiple such algorithms to exist and would eat up cmavo space with a density in proportion to how many algorithms exist). I never managed it though.

Comment #3: Re: Pattern

Ilmen (Thu Nov 26 18:25:42 2020)

krtisfranks wrote: > I do not really see the pattern in this series. It seems to be ("-y'au", > "-y'ei", "-y'ai"), but I am not sure why these suffixes were chosen, nor > do I understand how the first letter was chosen, nor why you stopped where > you did. > > I have long thought that we should go up to twenty-three because > base-twenty-four is common (military time) and it is not too many (unlike > perhaps base-sixty). • no, pa, re, ci, vo, mu, xa, ze, bi, so, dau, fei, gai, jau, rei, vai, xy'au, zy'ei, by'ai, sy'au, ny'ei, py'ai, ry'au, cy'ei, vy'ai, my'au, xy'ei, zy'ai, by'au, sy'ei, ny'ai, py'au, ry'ei, cy'ai, vy'au, my'ei, ... In the above sequence, the CV'VV digits are made by combining the consonants from the 0-9 base digits with the diphthong endings from the ten-fifteen part. For example, py'ai begins with p- becauses 21 modulo 10 = 1, and p- is the consonant of the base digit pa.

Comment #4: Re: Pattern Ilmen (Thu Nov 26 18:27:42 2020) Ilmen wrote: > • no, pa, re, ci, vo, mu, xa, ze, bi, so, dau, fei, gai, jau, rei, vai, > xy'au, zy'ei, by'ai, sy'au, ny'ei, py'ai, ry'au, cy'ei, vy'ai, my'au, > xy'ei, zy'ai, by'au, sy'ei, ny'ai, py'au, ry'ei, cy'ai, vy'au, my'ei, ... > > In the above sequence, the CV'VV digits are made by combining the > consonants from the 0-9 base digits with the diphthong endings from the > ten-fifteen part. > For example, py'ai begins with p- becauses 21 modulo 10 = 1, and p- is > the consonant of the base digit pa. That's certainly not the most elegant system, but it's trying to be consistent with the patterns already present in the zero-fifteen official digits.

Comment #5: Re: Pattern

Ilmen (Fri Nov 27 10:19:26 2020)

krtisfranks wrote: > nor do I understand how the first letter was chosen, nor why you stopped where you did. I stopped at twenty-one as base twenty is the second most common number base cross-linguistically if we ignore the hybrid base vigesimal-decimal which is a bit more common than pur vigesimal ( https://wals.info/chapter/131 ), so this would make Lojban a little more culturally neutral; having a digit for twenty and not just stopping at nineteen makes the declaration of application of base twenty (e.g. with ju'u more convenient (otherwise you need to say "in base ten × 2" or so, unless you decide that radix declarations are always in base ten, which isn't culturally neutral). But I think adding a digit for twenty-one was a simple mistake of me. :) But if going up to base twenty-four is desirable, we may add a few more in accordance to the set pattern.

Comment #6: Re: Pattern Ilmen (Fri Nov 27 10:20:09 2020) s/of me/of mine