--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ybsCqQ33FLEJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
We don't need another one. We already have three (numbers, with two words for
Sunday; East Asian derived; colors). I don't know of any natlang with more
than two (Portuguese-Galician has two, of which Portuguese uses one and
Galician the other). The East Asian sequence (soldei ce'o lurdei ce'o fagdei
ce'o jaudje ce'o mudydei ce'o jimdei ce'o derdei) doesn't have an intrinsic
start of the week.
I looked up the Arabic names of days of the week; they all match the Hebrew
names except for يوم الجمعة, for which the Hebrew is יום ששי (sixth day).
Sunday doesn't look like it matches but it does (ri'shon, first, is no
cognate of echad, one). So in Arabic, as in Hebrew, Sunday is the first day.
Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#.22Weeks.22_in_other_calendars
There can be no consistent correspondence for the starting day of the
week unless we ignore certain calendars with different cycles.
Why would Lojbanistan choose the 7-day week? Because it's an
international standard, adopted by the ISO? Isn't that adoption on
hegemonic rather than scientific grounds? Is there any real neutral
basis for the days of the week of any traditional calendar as there
are for the length of the Earth's day or year?
I care about which day is "Monday" etc. only as long as other people
do. Personally, I would be happy to get rid of those traditional time
units and live by the days of the year: "on the 32nd ... 182nd ...
365th" (yes, no months either).
mu'o
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
Yes, actually. At least, maybe.
The seven-day week arose independently in Latin and Germanic-speaking
cultures, in the latter case at a time when a lunar calendar was in
use which used direct observation of the moon to mark the beginning of
the month (when the crescent moon is first visible after sunset), with
some holidays on the full moon (including the first day of Yule). As
the moon looks full for several days (I am told, though I don't know
why it should be so, that this is especially true at higher latitudes
such as those of Northern Europe), picking a day as the actual "full
moon" date isn't a trivial observation to make the way the start of a
lunation is - but you can get an almost right answer that is
guaranteed to not be visibly wrong if you assume that it's two weeks
after the day you observe the first crescent. That this heuristic was
in actual use is not proven, but it seems likely; this would imply
that the week is half a fortnight, rather than the fortnight being
originally a term for two weeks.
This certainly isn't culturally neutral - it's only useful in
pre-modern lunar calendars! - but it is, at least, a basis in physical
phenomena.
I understand that. Most people on this planet are not only familiar
with at least one of the 7-day week systems but also organize their
life according to such cultural time units. The majority of Westerners
care about which day is "Sunday" and plan on particular activities
accordingly often because that's when they are given mutual (socially
meaningful) time-off and entertainment opportunities by tradition. As
for those countries that didn't have "Sunday" as a day of rest or a
holiday ("Holy Day") or even the distinction between working /
non-working days, especially the non-Western or non-Christian
communities, they would begin observing it in the same way the
Westerners did, especially since the colonial period, because, as you
say, it would "make things rather simple to decide" *in global
hegemonic situations*. Otherwise, the week system could be considered
unnecessary, unhelpful, or even confusing. It was introduced to Japan
before the 10th century C.E. but didn't take on until 9 centuries
later during its rather compulsive Westernization period, because
month days were useful enough for day-calculating businesses such as
lending.
So, the point is not only about "how many days should a week have" but
also "why should there be any week in the first place". As far as
Earthlings are concerned: one rotation makes one day; one revolution
makes one year; what natural, scientifically observable basis makes 7
days 1 "week"?
On 17 November 2011 11:12, Sebastian Fröjd <so.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Jonathan. The 7-day week is used worldwide and should therefore
> be the lojbanic standard by default.
There are many conventions that are worldwide but haven't been made a
Lojbanic standard. I think there ought to be other criteria for
deciding on such a matter in addition to historic prevalence,
especially for use in Lojban, where cultural assumptions are supposed
to be critically challenged.
> So I think everyone is free to use alternative standards as long as it clear
> from context or explicit expressed as seltau or put in the standard place.
If I said "mi dansu ca la [Sunday-cmevla]" for people in the U.S., I
would be implying mostly the first day of week that is a holiday; if
for Europeans, the last day that is a holiday; if for the Middle
Easterners, the second day that is a working day; and so on. Lojban
doesn't really need to officially dictate which one is "the first day
of week".
mu'o
je'e ki'e
The first day of the week is based on how many flies are born in a
single day from a single cluster of eggs, as determined by the
Lojbanic Institute of Fly-Time.
A revolution in keeping time is in our hands, people.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/HK8fqc8ttm8J.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
Oh yay. Now we've devolved to arguing semantics.
.ide'a mi puza krici lo du'u lo namcu detri cu nitcu zo moi
to zo pavmoidei mupli toi
.imu'o mi'e .alyn.
--
.i ma'a lo bradi cu penmi gi'e du
But if there's another standard, perhaps based more on scientific/logical, I would think that could be fascinating.
On 17 November 2011 13:12, Sebastian Fröjd <so.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
But if there's another standard, perhaps based more on scientific/logical, I would think that could be fascinating.
Well, I've found the zo'o logical one. At least for the majority of the city dwellers, as we know them. Mapping that to selbri seems tricky, so let's assume, that is not needed. cmene variant can be easily tweaked to personal taste, I prefer the "detri"s rafsi.
de'i zo u'o | la .u'ode'i.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.