On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:22 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > Just wondering ... > > Why are both mluni and lunra necessary?
No single gismu is strictly "necessary". There's a lot of overlap in the concepts covered by gismu, think of them as convenient rather than necessary. > mluni: x1 is a satellite/moon orbiting x2 with characteristics x3, orbital > parameters x4 > lunra: x1 is a major natural satellite/moon of planet x2; x1 is Earth's moon > [default] > > The only difference (I notice) between the x1 and x2 of both is lunra is a > natural satellite where mluni is any satellite (natural or unnatural). Other > than that mluni just seems to expand upon lunra. Another difference is that x2 of lunra is a planet, while x2 of mluni can be just about anything. > Is the only purpose for lunra is to specify the "natural" of the satellite >(couldn't that be specified in mluni's x3?) and to serve as a default for our >moon? terdi, solri and lunra are important enough for humans that they got their own gismu in spite of them being special cases of plini, tarci and mluni. mu'o mi'e xorxes
