|
|
Harlan Messinger kirjoitti 28.8.2006 20:24:
A proposal before the IAU conference that ended a few days ago was to
categorize Pluto, Charon, and a couple of other bodies as "plutons".
Never mind the fact that they rejected it given that "pluton" turned out
already to be a geological term: How was this idea sustainable for any
period of time given the (presumable) participation of astronomers who
speak languages in which "Pluton" is already the name for Pluto?
Perhaps modifications were made to the term in that case? As in Finnish,
where the term wouldn't in any case have been "pluton" but "plutoni".
(And no, Finnish usage doesn't have the -n in the planet name.)
--
.... Tommi Nieminen .... http://tommi.legisign.org/ ....
Lack one lacks both....and the unseen is proved by
the seen,
Till that becomes unseen and receives proof in its turn.
-Walt Whitman-
.... tommi dot nieminen at legisign dot org ....
|
|