Planetary Linguistics

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

Edward Hennessey wrote:
Yusuf B Gursey wrote in message
ups.com...

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
with potentiaqlly new planets coming up, here's a list of
names of the
convential nine in various languages:

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplan...nets/days.html


note that some languages use "Pluton" for "Pluto," making
"pluton" a
bad choice for the new classification.


Y.:

Especially when "pluton" has an established geological meaning.


meaning?
A pluton is a large body of intrusive igneous rock.
cheers
Bill

Yusuf B Gursey wrote in message
oups.com...

Edward Hennessey wrote:
Yusuf B Gursey wrote in message
ups.com...

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
with potentiaqlly new planets coming up, here's a list of
names of the
convential nine in various languages:


http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplan...nets/days.html


note that some languages use "Pluton" for "Pluto," making
"pluton" a
bad choice for the new classification.


Y.:

Especially when "pluton" has an established geological
meaning.


meaning?

Y.G.:

See:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Apluton

Regards,

Edward Hennessey

Leszek L. wrote in message
...
Uzytkownik "Yusuf B Gursey" napisal w
wiadomosci
ups.com...

note that some languages use "Pluton" for "Pluto," making
"pluton" a
bad choice for the new classification.

Either capitalized or not, "pluton" in Polish
already means:

- the planet (while it still is one) Pluto;
- the element plutonium;
- an army platoon.

Making it a generic term for an "almost planet"
would make it one of the most heavily overloaded
nouns in our language.

Even in English, I suppose terms derived from "Pluto"
and "pluton" would easily be confused.

Dear astronomers, please consider a different word.

L.L.:

And you forgot that goofy, Disney dog in English. When are you
going to be ready to rrrrumble?

Regards,

Edward Hennessey

John Woodgate wrote in message
...
In message , dated Thu, 17 Aug 2006,
Leszek L.
writes
Uzytkownik "Yusuf B Gursey" napisal w
wiadomosci
oups.com...

note that some languages use "Pluton" for "Pluto," making
"pluton" a
bad choice for the new classification.

Either capitalized or not, "pluton" in Polish already means:

- the planet (while it still is one) Pluto;
- the element plutonium;
- an army platoon.

Making it a generic term for an "almost planet" would make it
one of
the most heavily overloaded nouns in our language.

Even in English, I suppose terms derived from "Pluto" and
"pluton"
would easily be confused.

Dear astronomers, please consider a different word.

Since Ceres is to be promoted from 'asteroid', I suggest
'cereal
planet'.[1] (;-)

But the SF writers have been using 'planetoid' for years. I
suppose
that's why the scientists won't use it!

J.W.:

And since impacting astral bodies are hypothesized as causes of
great planetary extinctions, can we make it...slap, crackle,
plop...a cerial killer?

Regards,

Edward Hennessey

On 16-Aug-2006, "Yusuf B Gursey"
wrote in message . com:

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

with potentiaqlly new planets coming up, here's a list of names of the
convential nine in various languages:

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplan...nets/days.html

note that some languages use "Pluton" for "Pluto," making "pluton" a
bad choice for the new classification.

and in turkish it is Plu"ton (acc. to an authortative dictoionary (not
Plu"to as the website says)

From the phonetics [plyton], this is undoubtedly from French
"Pluton". For those who aren't aware of it (not Yusuf, of course),
French was the main source of 'Western' loans in Turkish until
relatively recently, when English surpassed it as it has everywhere
else.

--
Jim Heckman

U¿ytkownik "Edward Hennessey" napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ink.net...

Leszek L. wrote in message
...

Either capitalized or not, "pluton" in Polish
already means:

- the planet (while it still is one) Pluto;
- the element plutonium;
- an army platoon.

Making it a generic term for an "almost planet"
would make it one of the most heavily overloaded
nouns in our language.
(...)
L.L.:

And you forgot that goofy, Disney dog in English. When are you

Forgotten HIM? You must be joking. But I was only
listing the meanings of [P|p]luton, with an 'n',
the word that is IMHO unwisely being proposed
as a term for less-than-planetary bodies.

going to be ready to rrrrumble?

Hard to tell. Things are getting busy around here,
and I guess I should too.

Cheers,
L.

Edward Hennessey wrote in message
ink.net...

Leszek L. wrote in message
...
Uzytkownik "Yusuf B Gursey" napisal w
wiadomosci
ups.com...

note that some languages use "Pluton" for "Pluto," making
"pluton" a
bad choice for the new classification.

Either capitalized or not, "pluton" in Polish
already means:

- the planet (while it still is one) Pluto;
- the element plutonium;
- an army platoon.

Making it a generic term for an "almost planet"
would make it one of the most heavily overloaded
nouns in our language.

Even in English, I suppose terms derived from "Pluto"
and "pluton" would easily be confused.

Dear astronomers, please consider a different word.

L.L.:

And you forgot that goofy, Disney dog in English. When are you
going to be ready to rrrrumble?

He didn't. AFAICT, Leszek was giving various meanings
of the word "pluton". The Disney dog's name is Pluto.
pjk



Regards,

Edward Hennessey

In message , dated Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Paul J Kriha
writes

He didn't. AFAICT, Leszek was giving various meanings of the word
"pluton". The Disney dog's name is Pluto. pjk

Goofy! (;-)
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely.

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

Leszek L. wrote:

And you forgot that goofy, Disney dog in English. When are you

Forgotten HIM? You must be joking. But I was only
listing the meanings of [P|p]luton, with an 'n',
the word that is IMHO unwisely being proposed
as a term for less-than-planetary bodies.

wasn't suggested is quite intriguing.And the fact that such an obvious
and available alternative as 'plutoid'. Derivational morphology is quite
irrelevant at this point, also.
I happen to think the definition proposed is a good start, especially in
that it doesn't as yet resort to arbitrary continuous (as opposed to
discrete) properties. I'd suggest that something were added to the
roundness criterion, namely signoficant internal layering - which I
suppose would throw out some smaller bodies, but I don't know ebough
geology for that, other possibilities are to consider diversity of
chemical elements present - and, in the case of binary systems, to
consider only the largest as a planet (even if that would have us throw
out large bodies, after all the Moon is just a moon - as the system's
gravity centre is inside Earth - even if it is larger than other
candidate planets).

In short, to be a 'planet' (. kept, + added, - deleted),

1 . having a roughly round shape by virtue of its own gravity
2 . not being a star
3 . orbiting a star in a roughly round orbit
4 + having a core, mantle, etc, or similar geological / chemical criterion

In binary systems, instead of
5 - the gravity centre being outside any of the bodies
5 + the planet is the largest body even if the gravity centre is outside
of it, and the other(s) is/are moons

'Moon' would the be any body that meets at least 1, 2 and possibly 4,
but fails one or more of the others.

I see that this doesn't take rogue planets into account, but certainly
(3) is rewritable.
--
am

laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate

António Marques wrote:
Leszek L. wrote:

And you forgot that goofy, Disney dog in English. When are you

Forgotten HIM? You must be joking. But I was only
listing the meanings of [P|p]luton, with an 'n',
the word that is IMHO unwisely being proposed
as a term for less-than-planetary bodies.

wasn't suggested is quite intriguing.And the fact that such an obvious
and available alternative as 'plutoid'. Derivational morphology is quite
irrelevant at this point, also.
I happen to think the definition proposed is a good start, especially in
that it doesn't as yet resort to arbitrary continuous (as opposed to
discrete) properties. I'd suggest that something were added to the
roundness criterion, namely signoficant internal layering - which I
suppose would throw out some smaller bodies, but I don't know ebough
geology for that, other possibilities are to consider diversity of
chemical elements present - and, in the case of binary systems, to
consider only the largest as a planet (even if that would have us throw
out large bodies, after all the Moon is just a moon - as the system's
gravity centre is inside Earth - even if it is larger than other
candidate planets).

In short, to be a 'planet' (. kept, + added, - deleted),

1 . having a roughly round shape by virtue of its own gravity
2 . not being a star
3 . orbiting a star in a roughly round orbit
4 + having a core, mantle, etc, or similar geological / chemical criterion

In binary systems, instead of
5 - the gravity centre being outside any of the bodies
5 + the planet is the largest body even if the gravity centre is outside
of it, and the other(s) is/are moons

'Moon' would the be any body that meets at least 1, 2 and possibly 4,
but fails one or more of the others.

I see that this doesn't take rogue planets into account, but certainly
(3) is rewritable.
--


some size criterion shoudl also be included IMHO, which I think there
is.

am

laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate