3 ms·

..how did the words 'marsquake' and 'geocentric' set you off so badly? None of your examples even loosely fit the mold, 'terra' and 'geo' don't refer to a speci

..how did the words 'marsquake' and 'geocentric' set you off so badly? None of your examples even loosely fit the mold, 'terra' and 'geo' don't refer to a specific planet in this context at all. Marsquake is a fun word. You can also call it an earthquake and no one will bat an eye.

ChainOfFools 3y ago
I'm not sure why I agree with the op, but I do. I think it has something to do with the fact that this convention of planet prefix, and geological activity suffix is not going to work well at astronomical scales. Epsilon-eridani-c-quake is kind of a mouthful, no? It could be argued that doesn't work very well on a human scale either. after all when there's an earthquake, barring a civilization-ending apocalyptic situation, it's not the whole Earth that's quaking (at a human scale perspective), but rather a localized crustal region of it. A patch of earth (lowercase).
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago
  This is akin to worrying that the sky is falling when literally two drops of rain fell. "Oh my god, what are we going to do when the rest of it comes?!"
- burnished 3y ago
  Cute nicknames don't scale and thats OK. Worry about it when scaling becomes a problem.
feoren 3y ago
> 'terra' and 'geo' don't refer to a specific planet in this context at all Although originating as basically meaning "dry land", the word "Terra" became a proper name for the Earth in Latin around the Renaissance. The prefix "Geo" comes from the Greek for "Earth", the name of our planet. If you argue that "geo" really just means "land, ground, soil", etc., then you are exactly agreeing with me, since the word "earth" went through the same evolution: Geo-the-planet was named after geo-the-dirt. Earth-the-planet was named after earth-the-dirt.
- nine_k 3y ago
  If we start retiring Earth-centric terms too quickly, we'll have to invent tons of planet-specific cognates: not geography but marsography, lunagraphy, etc. Same with Sun-centric terms vs other star systems. I would suggest going for generic terms like "planetquake".
  - carapace 3y ago
    Selenology and selenography are both already in use.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- burnished 3y ago
  I specifically said in this context because I had this certainty you would form an argument from the origins of the word.
  - feoren 3y ago
    My whole point is that "earthquake" refers to the material called "earth", meaning "dirt", or "soil", or "the material making up the top layer of a planet", and that we should stop making up new words for everything that remotely shares an origin with the word for the name of our planet. This is my entire point. We should not be beholden to the origins of the word (and even if we were, we still don't need to rename earthquakes that happen on Mars). So you say: "geo-" and "terra-" don't refer to a specific planet in this context and I agree with you. That's the point. Neither does "earth-" in "earthquake". Are you trying to make the argument that "earth-" in "earthquake" refers to the planet Earth (rather than the material), unlike "terra-" and "geo-", or are you just completely agreeing with me on everything? I'm having trouble telling which is which.
    - burnished 3y ago
      Lets reset then and try to get to the root issue; your characterization of this as someone insisting is a total buzzkill, do you have to treat this like a bizzare moral pronouncement that you must denounce? If you can be chill about marsquake then I'll swear by all the fruit you can name to defend the use of 'earthquake' as correct regardless of the planet being discussed.
harimau777 3y ago
Personally, I'm a big proponent that the proper name for this planet is "Terra" not "Earth". So this whole discussion sets me off! ^_-

ChainOfFools 3y ago

I'm not sure why I agree with the op, but I do. I think it has something to do with the fact that this convention of planet prefix, and geological activity suffix is not going to work well at astronomical scales. Epsilon-eridani-c-quake is kind of a mouthful, no? It could be argued that doesn't work very well on a human scale either. after all when there's an earthquake, barring a civilization-ending apocalyptic situation, it's not the whole Earth that's quaking (at a human scale perspective), but rather a localized crustal region of it. A patch of earth (lowercase).

dumpsterdiver 3y ago
This is akin to worrying that the sky is falling when literally two drops of rain fell. "Oh my god, what are we going to do when the rest of it comes?!"
burnished 3y ago
Cute nicknames don't scale and thats OK. Worry about it when scaling becomes a problem.

feoren 3y ago

> 'terra' and 'geo' don't refer to a specific planet in this context at all Although originating as basically meaning "dry land", the word "Terra" became a proper name for the Earth in Latin around the Renaissance. The prefix "Geo" comes from the Greek for "Earth", the name of our planet. If you argue that "geo" really just means "land, ground, soil", etc., then you are exactly agreeing with me, since the word "earth" went through the same evolution: Geo-the-planet was named after geo-the-dirt. Earth-the-planet was named after earth-the-dirt.

nine_k 3y ago
If we start retiring Earth-centric terms too quickly, we'll have to invent tons of planet-specific cognates: not geography but marsography, lunagraphy, etc. Same with Sun-centric terms vs other star systems. I would suggest going for generic terms like "planetquake".
- carapace 3y ago
  Selenology and selenography are both already in use.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
burnished 3y ago
I specifically said in this context because I had this certainty you would form an argument from the origins of the word.
- feoren 3y ago
  My whole point is that "earthquake" refers to the material called "earth", meaning "dirt", or "soil", or "the material making up the top layer of a planet", and that we should stop making up new words for everything that remotely shares an origin with the word for the name of our planet. This is my entire point. We should not be beholden to the origins of the word (and even if we were, we still don't need to rename earthquakes that happen on Mars). So you say: "geo-" and "terra-" don't refer to a specific planet in this context and I agree with you. That's the point. Neither does "earth-" in "earthquake". Are you trying to make the argument that "earth-" in "earthquake" refers to the planet Earth (rather than the material), unlike "terra-" and "geo-", or are you just completely agreeing with me on everything? I'm having trouble telling which is which.
  - burnished 3y ago
    Lets reset then and try to get to the root issue; your characterization of this as someone insisting is a total buzzkill, do you have to treat this like a bizzare moral pronouncement that you must denounce? If you can be chill about marsquake then I'll swear by all the fruit you can name to defend the use of 'earthquake' as correct regardless of the planet being discussed.

harimau777 3y ago

Personally, I'm a big proponent that the proper name for this planet is "Terra" not "Earth". So this whole discussion sets me off! ^_-