From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:45:21 2010 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 19:20:59 -0400 From: Dylan Thurston Subject: {mluni} (was Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu) To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Tue May 16 01:17:06 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: la xorxes. puki cusku di'e > > > > Why not? I don't like the many irrelevant places of {klama}, but what > > > > can I do? Any suggestions for how to say "go around the oven"? la djan. baki cusku di'e > > > "mluni le toknu". I'm not sure I said this, but I really like this suggestion. It's a very creative use of what would otherwise be a rather technical term. xy. baki cusku di'e > > i mluni le toknu ma ma > > (How are those places filled anyway? Why does {mluni} have a place for > > "characteristics", whatever they are, and {klama} doesn't? How are > > orbital parameters x4 specified? Wouldn't space tenses work much better > > for that?) If I were to actually use this, I'd interpret "orbital characteristics" to be a route, as in {klama}, {litru}, etc. I have no idea why "planetary characteristics" are there. Wouldn't those be better handled by a relative clause? (If there are only two bodies, the sattelite and the thing it's orbiting, the sattelite moves in an ellipse with the center of mass at one focus--not always a circle. But things get much more complicated with more bodies in the system or with General Relativity--I don't think any sort of "orbital characteristics" can specify the motion then.) dy ba cusku di'e > I suspect all that stuff is there because {la lojbab. purci ke tarske djuno}. > Anyway, I didn't mean the suggestion seriously. I suspect that that the > existence of x4 requires that the movement of x1 around x2 be ballistic in > nature: a ball can {mluni}, but a person doesn't really {mluni} an oven. Well, I'd like to take it seriously. Consider the following gismu: mluni [lun] x1 is a satellite/moon orbiting x2 with characteristics x3, orbital parameters x4 lunra [lur] x1 is Earth's moon (default); x1 is a major natural satellite/moon of planet x2 plini [ ] x1 is a planet revolving around x2 with planetary characteristics x3, orbital parameters x4 First of all, the place structures are inconsistent, so something should definitely be changed. 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). 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. I'd also nominate that {mluni} not be restricted to astronomical bodies--that seems like an artificial restriction that's not necessary. 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.) 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. co'o mi'e. dilyn.