From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:44:58 2010 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 12:05:59 -0400 From: "Dylan P. Thurston" Subject: mluni - late response To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Wed May 24 15:53:39 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: 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": > > > and "solri" > > ... > >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.