There. . . what? Seriously, I would expect someone so concerned about language to use it correctly. You used an adverb in place of a pronoun.
Who, exactly, is this nebulous “they” you speak of? The Illuminati?
Through common agreement by the speakers of the language. We couldn’t even be having this conversation otherwise. That’s why they release a new dictionary every so often (the Oxford dictionary updates every 3 months, for example). To make sure that the written record of that agreement is up to date as that agreement changes.
You may not like it. But that’s the way it works.
A word that would have to be agreed on by the majority of the population before it could actually be used. The only difference between that and repurposing an already existing word is that one adds a new combination of syllables to the language.
Sun is to solar as star is to stellar. Stellar system. We could then say we’re in the stellar system Sol. But, that’s a system of multiple stars. So, we could call it a planetary system. Lo and behold:
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. My understanding is that Sol, and thus Sun, is a proper noun, hence the capitalisation. Therefore Solar System refers only to our own planetary system.
When referring to systems of unknown stars, the logical generic naming would either be stellar system or star system, depending on whether you wanted to use Latin or Middle English as a root.
Except, by IAU definition, a planet is a body not massive enough to undergo internal fusion of hydrogen into heavier elements, with a mass large enough that it is in hydrostatic equilibrium, with a relative mass large enough that it has cleared its orbit, and which is in orbit around the Sun.
By definition, a planet must orbit the Sun.
That means the only true “planetary system” is the Solar System.
So, if y’all are so stuck on being super-pedants, by all means. Keep on trying.
Linguistically “extrasolar planet” is a nightmare, just like “dwarf planet”, since in construction they’re an adjective-noun pair that constitute a completely different noun. It would be like if “red house” actually meant some sort of truck.
Because neither extrasolar planets nor dward planets are, you know, planets.
And, for the record, they’re technically and formally “extrasolar planetary systems”. Which only the most hardlined pedants use even in astronomy. Seriously. We call them “solar systems”.
Also, only the pretentious gits of astronomy call it “Sol”. That’s the kind of thing people who call Uranus “Ouronos” do. It’s “the Sun”.
Through common pressure by corrupted special interest groups. people who say dumb things like “the planet moon” (now science teacher should moon in this case be upper case?) people like that are why satellites are called moons.
Do you have any idea who the Illuminati were?
So how often should words change there meanings? There are tv shows from the '60 you would have problems with, not just the slang ether.
[quote=“Kichae, post:44, topic:1117”]
by IAU definition,
Changed a word by a few people just doing it. And saying a planetary system with this definition beyond implying a star, must mean a star is there.
And science-fiction - as with Terra for Earth. It can actually sound pretty good in SF. At least, to my non-native ear (there is not much difference in my native language).
It was actually this article that made me realize the problem with the “dwarf planet” term. But then, if we want to distinguish between the worlds that have cleaned up most of their orbit and those who didn’t? Main/minor planets? Lone/multiple?
I was reading about the definition of planet and I have a question for @Kichae or anyone else who knows about astronomy: Assume that suddenly an identical clone of Earth appeared and the two Earths started orbiting a common gravitational center which in turn orbits the Sun. Would the Earth then stop being a planet, since it hasn’t cleared its orbit around the Sun?
Already in use. Or at least it was, until “minor solar system object” superseded it. That was the lump term for comets, asteroids, etc.
That describes every two-body system ever, since two bodies always orbit around a common gravitational centre. It’s just that, in the cases where the masses are very different, that point often lies within one of them.
Take the Earth-Moon system. Right now, the gravitational centre (called the barycentre) lies within the Earth. It’s entirely possible that, if the Moon drifts far enough away before reaching tidal equilibrium (which I can’t remember if it will reach this distance or not), that the centre of mass of the Earth-Moon system will lies outside of the Earth.
In that case, one would think that the Earth-Moon system would be classified as a double-planet. But it won’t be, because that would require us to call the Moon a planet, and we’re very self-centred as a species (and as a science, which is ironic, considering we’re the field that gave the world Copernicus).
So, no. The Earth would still be called a planet, regardless of the definition of ‘planet’, because nothing, ever, in the history of astronomy will dislodge Earth from that category.
For a dozen different reasons. Because someone thought ‘X’ was a nice pun and it caught on. Because someone wanted to express a concept similar to one the word already expressed and it caught on. Because someone used ‘X’ as an insult or compliment and it caught on. Because the reality of the concept being expressed changed. Because a name associated with a concept became so ubiquitous that it came to supplant the original word. There are a dozen reasons words change without having to implicate boogeymen.
It’s called semantic drift, and it’s been a feature of language since language became a thing.
Your grammar is so bad that I had trouble parsing this. Did you mean"'planet’s moon"?
Unless speaking specifically about the Earth’s moon, lowercase. This is a case of a proper noun being genericized, like happened with jello, band-aid, and cellophane, as well as a word being repurposed to describe a conceptually similar object.
People like, well, people?
And of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that weather and telecommunications satellites have become so ubiquitous and important in modern society that they’re the first thing that people think of when the word ‘satellite’ is used. Not one bit.
Do you want the historical or modern definition? 'Cause, y’know, that’s changed in the intervening centuries.
It’s basic mistakes like this that make me wonder if you even know what you’re talking about.
As often as necessary to allow the people using them to communicate.
Like “gay old time”? Of course things would be different. As people, and the world they lived in, changed in intervening 65 years, so did the language. That’s a perfectly natural occurrence. Language changes to suit the people using it and the concepts they wish to communicate with each other.
Of course, you just reiterated a point I myself made just a few posts up.
Because someone thought it sounded cool or that it made them sound smart, used it, and it caught on.
Semantic forcing one’s self on a pour innocent word!
No. Some simpleton with no, none at all idea of space and a talking head on some news station on the big 4 broadcaster networks said (note the quote symbols) “the planet moon” That’s the kind of foolishness this ‘let every grunt equate to a complete sentence’ ‘you know what I mean (I hope because I have no idea of how to say it, bad schooling, bad student)’ nonsense.
You all ready misunderstood the planet moon part sooooo.
If that was only so. It’s laziness too insecure to be told there wrong/too afraid to tell people when there wrong.
I liked talking to my friend’s mom in Mexico. She wasn’t shy to correct my Spanish. And I was happy for it.
And when the clay and papyrus are still around and all the plastic melts words changing meanings in the duration of popular slang you and your culture will be gone too.
I’m honestly not sure if you’re even trying to communicate, now, or if you’re just bashing your keyboard and hoping something halfway intelligible comes out of it. Because that sentence makes no sense.
Oh and:
pour:
1 - (especially of a liquid) flow rapidly in a steady stream
2 - cause (a liquid) to flow from a container in a steady stream by holding the container at an angle
3 - prepare and serve (a drink)
If you’re going to get upset about people supposedly not using the right words when speaking, you should put more effort into making sure you don’t make basic mistakes like that.
Considering your own flub with Dyson Sphere on the screenshot page. . .
Because your grammar, spelling, and word usage are so atrocious that I’m having to make educated guesses at half of what you’re saying. I’m clearly putting more effort into reading your posts than you are into writing them.
Adverbs in place of pronouns.
You say that as though it were a conscious decision that society at large makes. “This word now means X.” Words change in meaning because, for one or more of a dozen reasons, someone uses a word in a new way and it catches on with the people around them.
This is something that has been studied for years, the data is there, that’s how it works.