HPM@S1-A@sri-unix.UUCP (08/26/83)
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@S1-A> I vote for apogee and perigee as generic terms for orbits around any body. There is a similar need for a generic term for "geology", "geochemistry", "geography", "geophysics", etc. The conversion to generic form of the "geo" root is already well established for words like "geometry" and "geodesic".
REM@MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (08/29/83)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
HPM has a good point. Let me play devil's advocate in favor of his
point (although I probably would have take the other side in a vote
yesterday):
Originally the Earth was the whole known universe (except for the
Heavens which were regarded as of a fundamentally different nature,
later were believed to be minor objects orbiting the Earth). "Geo" as
a prefix probably began back then and ambiguously meant both this
planet and the whole universe. When we become aware that Earth and
Universe aren't the same, in fact that the Earth is a small planet in
a very big Universe, we can choose whether "geo" should stick with
"Earth" or with "Universe". Up to this time the stuffy people
(including myself) have been claiming that "geo" meant "Earth", but
maybe we should have it mean "Universe" instead, and use "Sol-3" when
we mean "Earth". Thus "Geology" would be the generic study of land
while "Sol-3 geology" would be the specific study of land on Earth.
Any good arguments why "geo" should stick with Earth instead of with
Universe? Or for that matter, any good arguments the other way? My
only argument for picking HPM's choice is simplicity, better have a
short term ("geo" is 3 letters) apply everywhere and have longer terms
for specific cases. But that's a weak argument when there are 4.5
thousand million people who have never left Earth and only about a
hundred who have ever left Earth momentarily, and nobody who actually
resides elsewhere yet. Maybe we should postpone decision until 50% of
our population is in off-Earth, then make HPM's choice officially?