From DPT@HUMA1.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:13 2010 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 14:49:15 -0400 From: "Dylan P. Thurston" Subject: Re: {mluni} (was Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu) To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Tue May 16 20:03:37 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: 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.) mu'o mi'e. dilyn.