Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sBRMH-0009acC; Tue, 16 May 95 21:28 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 120D36CE ; Tue, 16 May 1995 20:28:29 +0100 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 13:01:11 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: {mluni} (was Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1784 Lines: 44 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