---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>Date: 2015-06-27 20:26 GMT+03:00
Subject: Re: Question on "celestial body".
To: Gleki Arxokuna <
gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
On 6/27/2015 11:18 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
coi.
Was {plini} meant to be a word for "celestial body in general" or
limited to "true" planets only excluding asteroids (and excluding dwarf
planets but that term obviously didn't exist at that time) ?
I doubt that we really considered the specific definition, but it would not have been limited to the official nomenclature, unless that was specified in x3.
I don't think that it would be as broad as "celestial body in general". It would probably include dwarf planets and asteroids (which have sometimes been called "minor planets" in English. That would be one factor to consider, by the way - How does Russian categorize various celestial bodies?)
My first inclination is to include any natural satellite of a star. But that leaves questions regarding double stars (including brown dwarfs, which are not much larger than Jupiter), and comets/meteor belts. Whether those are plini depend on how creative people can get with their defining tanru. There also presumably are planetary objects that have been ejected from a solar system; Those probably aren't plini because they don't revolve around a primary object, and hence lack the place structure,
(feel free to share this if it is relevant).
lojbab