Proposal: Uranus et. al. should no longer be called "plane-ettes".

[Chronos]

OK, what's the English name for Garfield's species? "Cat", of course. But in some contexts, "cat" can be ambiguous, because it can also refer to Simba or Shere Khan. And so, in contexts where clarity is important, we came up with another name that refers only to Garfield's species, and not to the others. And since any word from a modern language would be ambiguous, we used words from Latin, and call that species Felis sylvestris domesticus.

Similarly, the English name for Earth's single natural satellite is "the Moon". But in some contexts, "moon" can be ambiguous, because it can also refer to Ganymede or Phobos. And so, in contexts where clarity is important, we use a name that refers only to the world that Neil Armstrong set foot on, and we draw that name from Latin, and call that body Luna.

Yes, the IAU said otherwise. And that was a mistake, for the same reason it would be a mistake for biologists to insist that the only correct English name for Garfield's species was "cat".

[Devils_Advocate]

I'm fully aware of how language works, and have made an almost identical argument numerous times. The main difference when i argue it is that when i do it, i do it for words, which mean what people generally accept it to mean and is mutable over time, and which references (ie the dictionary) do not mandate what they mean but rather reflect the current usage (check Merriam-Webster if you don't believe me).

Conversely, this is not the case with names.

Setting aside rare counterexamples like that weird thing that Prince did, names are words. If you maintain that names don't mean what they're intended and understood to mean, I'm curious what you think the words "names", "words", and "mean" mean, and whether any of those senses of any of those words is even in common usage.

Beyond that, I find it slightly worrying when someone appears to regard "actual" as a synonym for "official". I'll admit that I haven't personally read 1984, but I feel like I've gotten the gist of at least parts of it.

[Aedilred]

So the example now given is a mistake of using the Moon's name as a descriptor, and the solution is to take a random language's word which means "moon" instead, and use that as the proper name for the Moon.

I really think this problem is uncommon enough that it likely doesn't warrant any solution other than simple editing, and even if a different solution is needed, sporadically resorting to other languages (which alternate language is used isn't even consistent, i should note) seems like it's needlessly confusing itself - is it named the Moon or Luna? Or maybe Selene? If absolutely necessary to use an alternate phrasing, wouldn't "Earth's moon" be exactly as accurate without any implications, even if unintended, that it has a different English/scientific name?

Ignoring that in all likelihood most uses of Luna are in the belief that it's the actual name of the Moon.

It's not a "random language". It's the language after which all other exoplanets in the system (except, for some reason, Uranus) are named, i.e. Latin. Uranus should be Caelus, really, but since Caelus also means "sky", the name was to some extent poorly chosen in the first place. (The reason, as I understand it, was to move out generationally from Earth, so Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus/Caelus represent another generational step back, but in that case you'd have to call Neptune "Chaos", which doesn't work, since "Gaia" is already too closely associated with Earth).

I will continue to call ithe Moon "the Moon", because that's its name, but I see the appeal in giving it a Latin name (ditto "Sol") for the sake of consistency. I flatly refuse to call Earth "Terra", however. (If we're going with a Roman name, it should be Tellus, dammit).
[quote]

If we all use "Luna" as the name of Luna, than "Luna" becomes Luna's name. It's like how "literally" means figuratively. Check Merriam Webster if you don't believe me.

Fortunately, being British, I don't have to listen to what some Yankee book says about the language or treat it as a reliable source. But any dictionary that includes the word's antonym as a definition loses credibility in the process anyway (looking at you too, OED).

[halfeye]

My point with "plane-ette" was that geometric planes are infinite, and perfectly flat, however planets are a close approximation to spheres, and so finite but unbounded, and appear to be more or less flat until you move about quite a lot on them. I am sure I am not the first to have noticed that "plane" and "planet" have similar spellings.

[Maat Mons]

The IAU is the recognized body that has established the guides on the names, as linked above.

By “recognized body” you mean numerous people choose to treat them as having authority. This is just a roundabout way of using common consensus to define words. Consensus regarding authority is just as ephemeral as consensus regarding definitions. As soon as people stop treating the IAU as the authority on the names of celestial bodies, it stops being the authority. Not using the names proscribed by the IAU is implicitly retracting any authority they’ve been granted. So yes, if enough people call it “Luna,” its name does become Luna.

Just like how if i call you "Matty Moon" and it catches on and everyone starts calling you that and it's obvious who they mean, that's still not your username and never will be unless you change it. Because names don't follow the same linguistic rules as words. The historical figure was not named Julius Tzar or Julius Kaiser.

While it’s generally accepted that a person has the right to determine how people refer to them, objects lack any capacity to make such a determination for themselves. There’s an argument to be made that the people who live in a place should have the right to determine how that place is referred to, but Luna lacks a population, and I suspect you don’t call Italy “Italia,” Germany “Deutschland,” and China “Zhongguo.”

That being said, i also don't want to hijack this thread over the moon, so this is where I'll just have any further rebuttals stand unopposed.

Aww, that’s no fun.

Beyond that, I find it slightly worrying when someone appears to regard "actual" as a synonym for "official". I'll admit that I haven't personally read 1984, but I feel like I've gotten the gist of at least parts of it.

I have read it. One of the government’s acts was to do a major overhaul of English, but nobody actually uses the overhauled version in day-to-day conversation.

Fortunately, being British, I don't have to listen to what some Yankee book says about the language or treat it as a reliable source.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary was the book that proscribed brand new spellings for words that Americans had previously been writing the same way as the British, setting us up for a world with multiple different “official” spellings, so I can understand the scorn.

I quite agree. I shall continue calling them planets or exo-planets, and never plane-ettes. I mean, it's not like they're plane-shaped, anyway. Although plane-ette is a decent term for a pocket plane.

It occurs to me I never fulfilled my original purpose in coming to this thread, suggesting we call them “spherettes.” Then larger celestial bodies can me “spherezillas.”

[InvisibleBison]

I am sure I am not the first to have noticed that "plane" and "planet" have similar spellings.

I don't see why you think that matters. Words having similar spellings doesn't mean they have similar meanings. "Window" and "widow" have similar spellings, but no one who sees a hole in the side of a building thinks that it has a dead husband.

[halfeye]

I don't see why you think that matters. Words having similar spellings doesn't mean they have similar meanings. "Window" and "widow" have similar spellings, but no one who sees a hole in the side of a building thinks that it has a dead husband.

They're a lot more similar than those.

[InvisibleBison]

They're a lot more similar than those.

Okay, so if my example is bad let's ignore it and get at the actual point: Why is the fact that "planet" is spelled similar to "plane" of any significance?

[Manga Shoggoth]

After a little bit of checking in my etymological dictionary:

• Plane: Derived from the latin planus (meaning flat)
• Planet: Derived from the greek planḗtai (meaning wanderer/wandering)

The only way they are simillar is that one has an extra "t" in English, which means they are next to each other in the aforementioned dictionary.

[OracleofWuffing]

Fortunately, being British, I don't have to listen to what some Yankee book says about the language or treat it as a reliable source. But any dictionary that includes the word's antonym as a definition loses credibility in the process anyway (looking at you too, OED).

They're called contronyms, and a dictionary that doesn't include them also loses credibility by virtue of being incomplete. While I thought they were inevitable given English's insatiable urge to incorporate any language it can, it turns out other languages have them, too. (I'm obligated to call out biweekly, which isn't a real contronym, but still ends up confusing no matter the context in which it is used.)

That said, we all know that if there will be any consensus on supplying Earth's natural satellite with a new name, it will be "Moony McMoonface."

My point with "plane-ette" was that geometric planes are infinite, and perfectly flat, however planets are a close approximation to spheres, and so finite but unbounded, and appear to be more or less flat until you move about quite a lot on them. I am sure I am not the first to have noticed that "plane" and "planet" have similar spellings.

But these issues apply to the planets that you're not redefining, too?

Too bad no one objected to calling the outer planets Space Balls... I recently realized that I missed the opportunity to suggest calling them Planen'ts.

[snowblizz]

And since any word from a modern language would be ambiguous, we used words from Latin, and call that species Felis sylvestris domesticus.

The use of Latin is because when Linnaeus wrote the first comprehensive and systematic taxonomies (he wasn't original in having the idea, but his work so good other's took up his system) he did so in the language of science at the time, i.e. Latin.
That convention has stuck around though in modern times names are probably best viewed as more "Latinesque". In effect the original use of Latin was exactly the opposite, it wasn't avoiding ambiguity by avoiding modernity. It used the modern language of science, which was still Latin, because avoiding ambiguity meant using the same language. And what avoids ambiguity is not the use of Latin in of itself but the systematic and unique naming of each species with a systematic approach to ordering into larger groups using family names, the very thing which made Linnaeus system so appealing to other's to adopt for themselves and continue his work.

[Chronos]

But Latin was the language of science of the time, in part, because it wasn't anyone's common language. This had two benefits: It avoided the political fallout of making one nation's language the language scientists from other nations used, and it marked any word in the language as having a technical meaning, which did not necessarily exactly match the common meaning of any word.

[snowblizz]

But Latin was the language of science of the time, in part, because it wasn't anyone's common language. This had two benefits: It avoided the political fallout of making one nation's language the language scientists from other nations used, and it marked any word in the language as having a technical meaning, which did not necessarily exactly match the common meaning of any word.

No. It was the language of science because it had been the lingua franca of Europe due to the importance of the church and the Latin rites and it's static form vis a vis the evolving Romance languages. You keep assuming it was deliberately picked and this is where you keep going wrong. It wasn't picked as the language of science. It *was* the common language for *everything*, particularly the language of scholarship and all scholarship as ultimately developed as an offshoot of the Catholic church's involvement in educational systems. And kept being so until superseded by other languages in various fields as centuries wore on. Not because of politics, not because it needed to be indicating technical jargon. But because Latin *was* the common language and remained the common language for higher education which remained a small and insular part of society for a long time, and thus institutional power kept it the science language for a long time. Eventually the national science circles get big enough there is a point where you might not necessarily need to publish in Latin and Latin starts to decline as general publication language. Particularly in new fields like e.g. (industrial) chemistry where most experts might be found within one language group.

[Metastachydium]

But Latin was the language of science of the time, in part, because it wasn't anyone's common language. This had two benefits: It avoided the political fallout of making one nation's language the language scientists from other nations used, and it marked any word in the language as having a technical meaning, which did not necessarily exactly match the common meaning of any word.

No. It was the language of science because it had been the lingua franca of Europe due to the importance of the church and the Latin rites and it's static form vis a vis the evolving Romance languages. You keep assuming it was deliberately picked and this is where you keep going wrong. It wasn't picked as the language of science. It *was* the common language for *everything*, particularly the language of scholarship and all scholarship as ultimately developed as an offshoot of the Catholic church's involvement in educational systems. And kept being so until superseded by other languages in various fields as centuries wore on. Not because of politics, not because it needed to be indicating technical jargon. But because Latin *was* the common language and remained the common language for higher education which remained a small and insular part of society for a long time, and thus institutional power kept it the science language for a long time. Eventually the national science circles get big enough there is a point where you might not necessarily need to publish in Latin and Latin starts to decline as general publication language. Particularly in new fields like e.g. (industrial) chemistry where most experts might be found within one language group.

At any rate, nevertheless, the stated advantages still apply and remain very much real(, people who think ableism is a technical term that should exist in any language ever, let alone across languages). That it worked so well for so long as the language of another supranational community(/institution) hardly disproves that.

[Ionathus]

That's what I grew up being taught, but it's not what they are now!

Jupiter and Saturn as 'Gas Giants', Uranus and Neptune are now 'Ice Giants' whatever that means.

Ice Giants, you say??

Okay, so if my example is bad let's ignore it and get at the actual point: Why is the fact that "planet" is spelled similar to "plane" of any significance?

We're getting into false cognates here, which is one of my favorite quirks of language. The answer, as others have pointed out, is simply that "language is like that sometimes." Especially for a language that draws from multiple other languages, and especially especially for English, the most thoroughly-mixed bastard child of the Romantic and Germanic languages' offspring[citation needed]. English wound up with a lot of duplicate words with at least one Latin root and one Germanic root, and they don't always have the same Proto-Indo-European origins.

[Trafalgar]

They clearly have visible surfaces, just not visible surfaces of anything solid. A lot of people are fine with talking about surfaces of liquids, and some even go along with talking about surfaces of clouds.

Yes, I agree. Uranus has a lot of gas.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.