mluni - late response

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

Again, thank you.

mi cusku di'e
 > >Well, I'd like to take it seriously.  Consider the following gismu:
 > >
 > >mluni [lun]
...
 > >lunra [lur]
 > >x1 is Earth's moon (default); x1 is a major natural satellite/moon of
 > >planet x2
 > >
 > >plini [ ]
...
 > Only inconsistent if they are all supposed to match. lunra does not fit
 > in with the other two, and hence should not be compared as to place
 > structure.  Instead, compare it to "terdi":
 >
 > <x1 is the Earth/the home planet of race x2; (adjective:)  x1 is
 > <terrestrial/earthbound
 >
 > and "solri"
 >
 > <x1 is the sun of home planet x2 (default Earth) of race x3; (adjective:)
 > <x1 is solar

Presumably the defaults here are the human race, yes?

I don't understand the "adjective" uses here (and in other places).
What's wrong with saying {pele terdi} for "terrestial"?  Why overload
{terdi}?

 > ...
 > >The difference between a {mluni} and a {lunra}, as strictly interpreted,
 > >seems to be that a {mluni} could include an artificial sattelite; and
 > >the difference between {lunra} and {plini} is primarily one of size:  a
 > >{lunra} is a {cmaplini} (modulo place structure).
 >
 > On the contrary, solri, terdi, and lunra have definitions extended from
 > the specific referents "Sun", "Earth", and "Moon" to allow for those
 > concepts to apply to science fiction or alien cultural concepts that
 > correspond.  All 3 are defined with reference to a "home planet", though
 > lunra does not explicitly use the word "home" because in science
 > fictional contexts, moons of other planets in the home solar system
 > are often used as colonial bases.
 >
 > There is a large contingent of SF fans in the Lojban community, and the
 > definitions were worded this way a long time ago in response to "how to
 > say it" questions of a science fictional nature.

Glad to here that, as an SF fan myself.  The way the definition's
worded, {terdi} and {solri} would have strong emotional connotations
in many SF settings.  Neat. (I don't see {lunra} really fitting in
with these two, though: the emotional connotations aren't there if any
old moon can be a {lunra}.)

 > >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,
 > >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.
 >
 > You can do a lot of things with a relative clause.  The point is to
 > include any parameters (le ka properties) that justify defining x1 as a
 > "planet".  If you want to call a comet a plini, or an asteroid, or the
 > earth's moon, you are constraining the definition of plini from the
 > traditional cultural one for a planet, and the value for x3 should
 > contain that information that makes the claim of planethood true.
 > "Parameters" is thus a somewhat more flexible way to say "standard",

Do you mean "Characteristics"?

 > because I don't think that a specific standard as opposed to a set of
 > properties will be the most frequent value (should anyone ever decide to
 > specify the value %^).

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  What's an example of such a
standard?  (In English or Lojban.)  And if it is a standard, why isn't
it last (like all the other standard places I've come across)?

And what about {mluni}?  What characteristics are necessary to make
something a {mluni}, other than the mere fact of orbiting?

 > >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.)
 >
 > Exactly.  So use a route if that is more convenient, or a property
 > abstract "le ka stodi sraji galtu lo pa stizu" if that is a better style
 > of specifying the satellite's motion.

OK.  Can this get added to the definition?  Many more people understand
"route" than "orbital characteristics".  (Is {lo pa stizu} a "frame of
reference"?  Should it be {le ka stodi ke sraji galtu}?)

 > >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.
 >
 > We have words for ballistic trajectory objects - danti and farlu.

Except both of these (currently) have specific meanings:  {danti} is a
projectile, and {farlu} needs a source and destination.

 > lojbab

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.