the moon

[Ryokan]

If our moon is the Moon, why isn't our planet called the Planet?

 

[Meffy]

Because it's the World.

[PremiataForneriaMarconi]
And the world... became... the woooorrrrrrlllld!
[/PremiataForneriaMarconi]

 

[geni]

why is it that our moon is just called the moon and other planets moons have cool names, we're getting hosed!!

No other planets have moons the word you are looking for is satellite.

 

[Meffy]

@Ryokan: Historically speaking, the word "planet" comes from the ancient Greeks' word meaning "wanderer" -- the planets were those starlike objects that did not remain stationary against the starry background, but moved over time. Earth does this too but it's kinda biggish, occupying half the perceptual sphere, so the motion's not obviously the same as the motions of tiny points of light. "The world" is good down-home plain folks talk. "Planet" is what those scientists say in their ivory towers (ivory having been the construction material of choice for ancient observatories and laboratories according to implied, yet non-attested, folklore).

 

[Starthinker]

The Earth has a moon they call Luna,
It's shaped like a big can of tuna,
It's orbit, they say,
Equals one Lunar day,
So we only know one side's persona.

I really suck at this but I'll bet I hit the post button anyway. Took me nearly an hour for that, just so you know.

 

[Meffy]

Heh, not bad... I won't moon ya. I might get kickled. =o.@=

 

[elgarak]

There's only one moon. The Moon, our moon.

The others are SATELLITES of their planet.

Problem solved.

 

[De_Bunk]

Does anyone remember my "Flashes on the Moon" threads...

I am not silly...

I have seen this a couple of times now...and its not passing satellites..or planes...Its just a sudden, localised, real rapid burst of white / reddish / blueish, pin prick lights on the dark bit of the Moon

DB

 

[JamesDillon]

No other planets have moons

Yes they do.

moon –noun
1. the earth's natural satellite, orbiting the earth at a mean distance of 238,857 miles (384,393 km) and having a diameter of 2160 miles (3476 km).
2. this body during a particular lunar month, or during a certain period of time, or at a certain point of time, regarded as a distinct object or entity. Compare full moon, half-moon, new moon, waning moon, waxing moon.
3. a lunar month, or, in general, a month.
4. any planetary satellite: the moons of Jupiter.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moon&x=0&y=0

See also Wikipedia:

A natural satellite is a non-man-made object that orbits a planet or other body larger than itself. It is commonly referred to as a moon (not capitalized).

See also the American Astronimical Society:

Saturn's mid-sized moons: a Model for their Origin, Bulk Chemical Composition and Physical Structure

A. J. R. Prentice (Monash University, Australia)
I report the results of a revised model for the formation of Saturn's family of icy moons following Cassini's first encounter with Enceladus (URL: www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/2378.pdf).

the word you are looking for is satellite.

I think the word he was looking for was "moon."

 

[Meffy]

Does anyone remember my "Flashes on the Moon" threads...

I am not silly...

I have seen this a couple of times now...and its not passing satellites..or planes...Its just a sudden, localised, real rapid burst of white / reddish / blueish, pin prick lights on the dark bit of the Moon

There have been reports by astronomical observers of flashes on the Moon, but not many. I've definitely seen pinprick lights -- not on the Moon, but on whatever I happened to be looking at. I've been told these might be caused by single cosmic ray photos stimulating the retina directly, without imaging by the eye's optics. Dunno if that's so but apparently it's physically possible.

 

[geni]

I think the word he was looking for was "moon."

The opening question wouldn't exist if people hadn't instited on missuseing that word.

 

[JamesDillon]

The opening question wouldn't exist if people hadn't instited on missuseing that word.

Without lingering on the irony, do you have any basis for believing that use of the term "moon" as a common noun is a "misuse"? What authority might one appeal to in order to prove the dictionary and the scientific community wrong?

 

[Meffy]

geni, you're fighting a losing battle. It's perfectly acceptable to use "moon" to describe natural satellites of any planet.

In fact, when I was young it was not uncommon to hear artificial satellites described as "man-made moons." That's stretching it a bit but I'd want to put it to a usage panel before declaring it improper.

 

[Notrump]

Moon is an Ancient Term for a Unique Body

why is it that our moon is just called the moon and other planets moons have cool names, we're getting hosed!!

This same question has arisen numerous times on astronomical message boards. There is really only one Moon. Yes, the generic term applied to the satellites of other planets has entered the popular language. Indeed the generic definition now appears in dictionaries, but this is only because of frequent misuse (especially by the media.)

The word comes from the German “Mond”, Old English “Mona”, and Middle English “Mone”. When the term first developed, there were no other Moons to consider. Galileo discovered four bodies circling Jupiter and dubbed them satellites (meaning attendants.) Following his discovery it was only occasional that a writer would use the term moon to describe a satellite by analogy with the true Moon. Then beginning in 1957 artificial satellites were sent into orbit. Some folks developed the mistaken notion that all satellites must be artificial. This greatly increased the usage of the generic term moon when speaking of natural satellites.

So nearly 50 years later we have people asking why the Moon has no name of its own. It has a name in English: Moon. It may seem romantic to use the Latin term Luna , but those speaking Latin based languages have the same problem as English speakers regarding the increased generic usage of the word.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Once I'm done building my giant freaking lazer, and carve my initials onto the face of the moon -- you all will be singing a different tune! It will be mine I tell you! All mine!

Will it be a Luna tune?

 

[JamesDillon]

This same question has arisen numerous times on astronomical message boards. There is really only one Moon. Yes, the generic term applied to the satellites of other planets has entered the popular language. Indeed the generic definition now appears in dictionaries, but this is only because of frequent misuse (especially by the media.)

The word comes from the German “Mond”, Old English “Mona”, and Middle English “Mone”. When the term first developed, there were no other Moons to consider. Galileo discovered four bodies circling Jupiter and dubbed them satellites (meaning attendants.) Following his discovery it was only occasional that a writer would use the term moon to describe a satellite by analogy with the true Moon. Then beginning in 1957 artificial satellites were sent into orbit. Some folks developed the mistaken notion that all satellites must be artificial. This greatly increased the usage of the generic term moon when speaking of natural satellites.

So nearly 50 years later we have people asking why the Moon has no name of its own. It has a name in English: Moon. It may seem romantic to use the Latin term Luna , but those speaking Latin based languages have the same problem as English speakers regarding the increased generic usage of the word.

I'm not an expert on this question, but I do note that one online etmylogical dictionary says that the generic use of the term "moon" was "Extended 1665 to satellites of other planets." If the term has been used generically for 340 years, I don't see any real basis to call that usage "incorrect" today.

Edit: The fact that the moon is always referred to with the definite article seems further evidence that the language recognizes the legitimacy of the generic use, as well. If "Moon" were only a proper name, then why would we need to specify which one we're talking about?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Send me $29.95 and we will change the name of the Moon to Ramooone.

For an additional $12.95 you will recieve a certificate of varification to prove authenticity.

Cash only. No refunds.

Yes, but will it be published in book form and placed in the Library of Congress? Only then will I consider it official!

 

[Skeptic Guy]

But what would college students do when they drink too much...you can't "titan" someone; or "phobos" them...you really need to be able to "moon" someone.

glenn

You haven't seen some of my larger friends "moon" someone.... titan might be appropriate!

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I'm not an expert on this question, but I do note that one online etmylogical dictionary says that the generic use of the term "moon" was "Extended 1665 to satellites of other planets." If the term has been used generically for 340 years, I don't see any real basis to call that usage "incorrect" today.

Edit: The fact that the moon is always referred to with the definite article seems further evidence that the language recognizes the legitimacy of the generic use, as well. If "Moon" were only a proper name, then why would we need to specify which one we're talking about?

I think it quite acceptable to use moon to describe the satellites orbiting other planets. If it's good enough for NASA, it's good enough for me.

 

[kevin]

Anyone read Phil Foglio's Illegal Aliens? Hilarious book. He has a section about how you can't be a member of the galactic civilization until you stop calling your planet "dirt" (or it's equivalent in the local langauge)