Message-Id: <m0sBRvh-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 16 May 1995 14:49:15 -0400
Reply-To:     "Dylan P. Thurston" <DPT@HUMA1.BITNET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "Dylan P. Thurston" <DPT@HUMA1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: {mluni} (was Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <01HQKNR0LT9EBHE7CY@NETOP6.HARVARD.EDU>
Content-Length: 1322
Lines: 31

I wrote:
 > > 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.)

jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes:
 > How would you say that with the current structure?

Umm... {le mluni be fo lenu lesu'u terdi cu stodi} (or {le
tedystomluni}), perhaps.  I could expand {lesu'u terdi} if pressed.

 > > 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.

The distinction I had in mind was that between self-powered motion
(the fox walks around the oven) and that from an external force (as
the force on a sattelite or ball).  "Ballistic" is doubtless not the
right word.  (And the distinction seems fuzzy.  I can imagine running
into difficulties.)

 > Jorge

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.