"Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr dot org> wrote: >> Yes, when discussing values in hex, this is an English problem. What do I >> call the useful higher powers and groups? What is the equivalent of >> "thousands" or "millions" to refer to powers of 65536 or 4294967296? > > Seriously, these questions are all answered in the book... > > (written using "classical" hexadecimal digits) > 0=Noll 1=An 2=De 3=Te 4=Go 5=Su > 6=By > 7=Ra 8=Me 9=Ni A=Ko b=Hu C=Vy d=La > E=Po F=Fy 10=Ton 100=San 1000=Mill 1,0000=Bong > 1,0000,0000=Tam 1,0000,0000,0000=Song 1,0000,0000,0000,0000=Tran > 2,8d5b,7E0F=Detam, memill - lasan - suton - hubong, ramill-posanfy
I agree with Mark Shoulson that this entire line of argument--whether hex is better or more "natural" than decimal, how to speak the names of hexadecimal numbers, and such--is outside the scope of this list. The purpose of Unicode is to encode characters that have achieved some agreed-upon level of actual use in the real world. It is not a venue for promoting any sort of reform. Many people on this list may be personally interested in this discussion--we do have other interests besides Unicode, after all--but in that case I suggest prepending "[OT]" to the Subject line to acknowledge that the thread is Off-Topic with respect to Unicode. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
