|
|
"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4lhpv8F1tkmiU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
> > "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 should have mentioned that these are more than just one or two.
> Referring to the page Yusuf provided: French, Spanish (ignoring the
> accent), Galician (ignoring the accent), most of the major Slavic
> languages, Basque, Greek, and Farsi.
>
> >
> > 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".
>
> The exceptions perplex even further: "fake planet" or "phony planet"
> would not logically be a hyponym of "planet".
And "apparent exception" somehow manages to simultaneously be a hyponym of
"exception" and, er, something else.
> > 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."
>
> I've come across legalese like this. It does make it hard to focus
> through the tears, doesn't it?
Glad to see I'm not alone.
Regards,
Ekkehard
|
|