Link: Copy link
First of all, for most everyday purposes, time to the nearest trice is going to be more than sufficient, just as time to the minute is. Indeed, time to the nearest breather (ten minutes) or half-breather (block, 5 minutes) usually is good enough. The kinds of applications where we would need to express it down to the lull or the twinkling, just as down to the second, tend to be technical ones where fussy precision is expected anyway. Racing start and finish times come to mind. Or a television producer planning and then cuing the local commercial spots into the break periods during the broadcast program. Or computer security personnel tracking the course of a virus attack through a network. Or just about any scientific recording of relatively quick phenomena. So pronouncing a radix point is not so great a price to pay for the needed precision.Paul Rapoport wrote: "Eight ninezy-two eleven" reminds me that for 890.E I cannot say "eight ninezy eleven," which would probably be taken as 89E. "Point" is required.
There are "eight ninezy-eleven" and "eight ninezy eleven" (resp. 89E and 890.E), but good luck distinguishing those in normal speech. A pause would be needed before "eleven" in the latter but wouldn't likely be enough to indicate it.
Actually, I think 6:40d am would be trice 340z (remember, 1 dwell = 2 hours, but 10z trices = 10d minutes). So that could be "minette threegro-fourdo" or "duor three, temin four"... or "trice three-forzy" or "dwell three, breather four".icarus wrote: There are actually very many possibilities. One I am fond of calls 6:40 am "three duor two dozen", or "three twozen" just as I would say "six forty".
Yeah, I like that. I forgot about that customary construction, but we can certainly emulate it. So 7:50d am = trice 3Ɛ0z could be "trice three-levenzy" or "a breather to dwell four" or "zen trices to dwell four". Or we can shorten that to "breather to four" or "zen to four".icarus wrote:If it were 7:50 am I would say "A dozen to four". If one likes primel, one might use that in place of "duor" and you'd get "dwell".
And in fact, for many years after the founding of the DSA (and who knows how many before?), the Duodecimal Bulletin expressed times (for instance, in meeting agendas) as simple three-digit dozenal integers of minettes (trices). That was their first instinct, and it was a good one.icarus wrote:So it would seem that time written as three dozenal digits would be common.
Nor would I imply that Primel is "the" only way, or that it could never be improved upon -- but it is "a" way. If you honestly like it, why do you have to tie your hands and go through awkward circumlocutions to pointedly avoid it? Why not just use it? Run it through some paces and give it some wear, help me smooth out the rough parts and maybe make it better. I understand that as an officer of the DSA, you don't want to appear biased. But in that case, just come up with a stock disclaimer, like we've included in the front matter of every Bulletin issue, to remind everyone that just because we test-drive one scheme doesn't mean we're sanctioning it. Or of you absolutely must demonstrate even-handedness, do up any examples as tables comparing all the relevant approaches side-by-side.icarus wrote:(This is just to point out that one need not use any particular system or framework; dozenal time works the same way.) ... (thanks for the history research, Kode, and here I am trying to stay more neutral in terms of nomenclature. Though I am personally fond of primel, and not as fond of the founder style, I don't want to convey by implication that primel is "the" way).
Maybe because metric's prefix scheme, even after SI inflated it, still falls far, far short of being a full-up replacement for scientific notation, or even for natural language expressions for large numbers. It's still pretty half-a$$ed. And remember that it only started with kilo-, hecto-, deka-, deci-, centi-, milli-. And maybe myria- too. No mega- or micro- even, to start with. So there were a number of years where the biggest length you could express in metric was the kilometer, and you had to prepend "hundred", "thousand", "million" etc to it to express bigger distances. People got used to that and it became a habit, long before someone coined more prefixes. But if the French Revolutionaries had come up something like SNN already fully formed, it might be a different story.We can see some of this in the use of metric. Why are planets measured in kilometers? Couldn't they be measured in megameters? Even interplanetary distances are stated in kilometers. From this we can see that a way we state time might be "sticky" and we would use a perhaps "inappropriate" or "not fully appropriate" scale despite the fact another rank is available.
|"red" calendar||"blue" calendar||Other items|
|1||tayyâ, "day"||3||tartayyor, "three-days"||6||reçyrâ, "row, line of items"|
|10||lisarâ, "brief set"||30||ekrone, "screen, matrix"|
|100||xrgâ, "life phase"||300||anrenâ, "Icarus' 'year'"|
|1000||xisaen, "life stage"||1600||ekron tivanal, "heavenly partition"|
|4600||xiomðe, "life-season, generation"|
That seems the question which is hard to answer. Because we are so much accustomed at using larger spans of time in combination of months and years, sometimes even taking moon into account even if it makes the calendar more complicated where moons phases doesn't help us at all, certainly not as much as the seasons. No one wants to change to (or even answer) for propagating counting days and only using its powers for a calendrical longer time spans timekeeping.Paul Rapoport wrote: Would it? Or is the year a ("strong") reality as fundamental as the day?