From jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Tue Dec 21 11:57:28 1999 X-Digest-Num: 317 Message-ID: <44114.317.1744.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:57:28 -0500 From: John Cowan When I was a kid and into astronomy more than I am now, it was never > a widely held theory that the moon was the result of a collision with > another planet ripping a chunk out of the earth. That is the standard theory now, except that *both* the Earth and the Moon are the result of that collision. > (ObConlang: Does your conlang have a verb which specifically > describes massive asteroid impacts that rip a chunk off a planet and > make it into a moon? Sure: in Lojban, that would be lurborzbaplinyborpopkemcmaplinyjanli. (c = /S/, j = /Z/, y = /@/, all else IPA; penultimate stress). That analyzes to "(moon make) (planet break) ((small planet) collide)". > Why or why not?) Why? A consequence of Lojban's fully productive compounding rules. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)