|
|
"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4lgn7aF1qpokU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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?
I'm afraid I have no idea, Harlan, but what irritates me no end about the
new term is that "[adjective] planet" should logically be a hyponym of
"planet". I really dislike that sort of jargon. In fact, my aversion to
usages like the following probably made it easier for me to empathise with
Daniel's preoccupation with the meanings of "rare".
www.usaid.gov/iraq/form/aan_01-14-04.pdf:
"The purpose of this notice is to provide guidelines for purchasing and use
of Vehicles and Armored Vehicles."
Regards,
Ekkehard
|
|