Re: {mluni} (was Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu)

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la dilyn cusku di'e
> I think I see why {plini} has a place for "planetary characteristics"; so
> you could say, e.g., {le fi le xunre ku plini} to mean Mars.  But again,

That's not grammatical, you mean {le plini be fi le xunre}, however, it
does seem to be a reasonable construction.  I don't know if it would
cause problems, but if it doesn't, perhaps it should be made
grammatical.

BTW, strangely enough, {le pe fi le xunre ku plini} is grammatical, but
with {be} instead of {pe} it isn't.

Also, I'm not sure I understand how "the red thing" works as a planetary
characteristic.

> this could be done with a relative clause, {le plini poi xunre}, or a
> tanru, {le xunre plini}, or a lujvo, {le xunplini}.  I'd nominate that
> that place be removed.

I second the motion!

> I'd also nominate that {mluni} not be restricted to astronomical
> bodies--that seems like an artificial restriction that's not necessary.

I agree. Movement around something is a general enough concept.

> And I'd also nominate that "orbital characteristics" be changed to
> "route" to confuse people less.  Even for astronomical use, I think
> that's fine.  (Though it might make saying something like "geosynchronous
> sattelite" somewhat more difficult.)

How would you say that with the current structure?

> The restriction to ballistic flight is an interesting idea--then one
> could say {le bolci le stedu cu mluni}, but not {le lorxu cu mluni le
> toknu}.  I don't know where I stand on that.

What is ballistic flight? Is it movement in a centripetal force field?
I thought it was movement in a constant field, as gravity appears to be
near the surface of the Earth. At least that's the field bullets
experience. I doubt that we need a basic gismu for movement in a
centripetal field.

Jorge