casnu lo klesi:nanca

Active discussions


what's with the 'n+1th century' notation? aren't we above this? mi'e bobas 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been following the convention that previous wikipedians have set, prior to 2006; I don't recall the specifics, but there were long discussions on the wiki about this, and I think this was the general conclusion. I'll research it and see what I can find out. It's not consistent with the use of decades and the use of years, so I'm at least willing to consider changing them over (it's a lot better now than laterĀ :-) However, I'd like more support than just you and me, if possible. Stifynsemons 22:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion of what na'acto means on, and the definition of na'acto in jbovlaste doesn't resolve this either. I did see this on before I started using it; I copied the existing usage, but since there was no disussion of it, there is no reason to believe that I did this correctly either. My vote is to make the period of time from 1900 to 1999 be 19moi na'acto, etc., and I assume that your vote is the same. Stifynsemons 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
correct. mi'e bobas 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What about "negative" years? Is ni'upamoi nanca part of ni'upamoi na'acto?

What calendar should we use for dates before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar? ISO 8601 or Julian calendar?



  • is the de facto standard
  • less complicated, because conversion to proleptic calendar is not necessary

--Danogo 17:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting; I was not aware of ISO 8601 until you posted it in 2007moi nanca. I've only made a cursory study of it and don't understand how it helps with NS/OS dates. Regarding negative years, that has always been the motivating factor behind 1999 being in the 20th century. I had forgotten about that. However, if we just drop the digits to get the decades, like we do now, there will be two decades with 9 years each, which isn't real lojban-like. Although there is no reason that we have to have call that special case a decade. Stifynsemons 09:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with NS/OS dates is that the Gregorian calendar wasn't immediately adopted everywhere. For example, Shakespeare died before the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England, so the date of his death is typically still written according to the Julian calendar, i.e. April 23rd, 1616 (OS) (cf. However, other countries had already adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1582. So assume there is an event X that happened in Spain on the day Shakespeare died. Because Spain adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1582, books of history would say "X happened on May 3rd, 1616 (NS)". With mixed using of Julian/Gregorian (OS/NS) this is confusing, because two events that occurred on the same day have two totally different dates. ISO is unambiguous, because it always uses Gregorian (NS) dates, so events that happened on the same day have the same date. However, since almost all sources don't use ISO, it's confusing and complicated to convert all dates to ISO. --Danogo 13:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I understood the NS/OS issue, but it wasn't clear how ISO solved that now it is, and I suspect it's too confusing to use here. Why don't we stick to the system you are already implementing, and come up with a proper term for the positive and negative nonades (group of 9 years) near zero. Stifynsemons 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
.ie, it is much too complicated to use ISO here.
But what about negative centuries? Can we use ni'unomoi for ni'u99moi nanca to ni'u1moi nanca. I don't know whether mathematicians appreciate "negative zero".
What came to my mind is "na'arsozmei" (nanca+9+mei) for the nonade and "na'arsozysozmei" (nanca+9+9+mei) for the 99-ade. --Danogo 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
interesting. i think we should convert to iso, and just given the julian date in parentheses where relevant, just like we convert names to lojbo phonology, but also give the original name. mi'e bobas 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Let's use ISO and add something like "to li 1616-04-16 pevede'i la .iulius. toi".
A usage I've seen once (it was in a message I got in the telephone game) used "pasotu'otu'o" for "the 1900's".
Btw, what's the difference between "ctona'a" and "na'acto"? I prefer "ctona'a", like "ki'ogra", "miltre", etc. -Pier 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Implementing ISO isn't as complicated as I thought, almost all templates have already been created on en-wikipedia. I created Template:JC based on them, it converts a Julian date to ISO and adds the Julian date in parentheses, so {{JC|1616|04|23}} generates 1616-05-03 to li 1616-04-23 pevede'i la .iulius. toi. It's only a suggestion, we don't have to use it.
I like "pasotu'otu'o".
"ctona'a" and "na'acto" seem to be the same, the descriptions on jbovlaste are the same --Danogo 19:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
ctona'a is more consistent with other units, as Pier pointed out Stifynsemons 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Return to "nanca" page.