[sgtfuzzbubble011]

(I apologize in advance for the length of this post.)

Semantic debates are about as bad as political and religious debates. I unfortunately got involved in one a few weeks ago, and I've been trying to just get over it, but it's been grating on me ever since. As you can probably tell from the subtle hint in the thread title, it's about the misuse of the term "Solar system." I was told I was wrong, and I want to know why...

So it starts off by me reading a short article on a sci-fi/fantasy/literature blog about the possibilities of other planets orbiting other stars being able to harbor life if they're in the so-called "Goldilocks Zone," and how different factors determine it's actual definition. In the article, the author refers to other planetary systems as "Solar systems." I posted a reply:

"Solar system" refers to our planetary system. Our star's name is Sol, hence Solar system. Other planetary systems are not "Solar systems."

Another person replies stating that Sol is simply Sun in Latin (which it is), and that this is purely a semantic debate which depends on whether I will give other moons distinct names from our Moon (which makes little sense now that I think about it). He goes on to say that it's a matter of convention, there is no right and wrong, and some publications go one way while others go the other way.

I reply:

I'm afraid there is a right and wrong in this case. Other stars have names (Polaris, Aldebaran, Sirius, etc). Our star's name is Sol. ( wiki link here ) The word "Sun" isn't a generic term for just any star. It's our star. You're right that some publications go one way while some go the other, but that just means that some of them are right and some are wrong. Also, our moon is named Luna as well.

He replies:

No. They don't have it "wrong". There is no "official" convention for the terminology that everyone should follow.

Also, Luna is a Latin name for the Moon, not the name. It's like insisting that anyone who doesn't call a cat felis domesticus is just mistaken. Comprehend that a single object or entity can possess multiple names for different contexts and purposes. Insisting that one of them is inheritly "right" and all others are "wrong" is nothing more than ignorant prescriptivism.

Now that I've reread that a couple times, I realize that he's basically contradicting the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that one specific term does not refer to multiple things while he's saying that one specific thing can have multiple terms that refer to it. My brain is now full of fuck.

Here's my next reply:

This is exactly why our language is going down the crapper. Allowing more and more casual misuses of words and terms for things that aren't correct, but letting them slide by anyway, gives me a headache. This is almost as bad as people that refer to engines as "motors." There's a difference, and you don't have to tell me to look it up in the dictionary, because they're wrong as well. You're right about Sol and Luna being the Latin names for the Sun and the Moon. Don't forget that the English language (as with many others) is based on Latin. Sol and Luna are THE names for the Sun and the Moon. That's where they originated. Sun and Moon are the English language's current proper names for them. I don't bother correcting people that refer to any automobile as a "car" simply because it's entirely too much of a pain in the ass to tell them that I drive a truck rather than a car. Despite that, it doesn't mean they're right. At any rate, I'm not going to debate this further.

As the other person points out in his next reply, I was indeed wrong about the origins of the English language. At some point in my life, either I was taught incorrectly that English was based on Latin, or I happened to misread something that led me to believe that. I honestly can't remember, but in reality, it doesn't affect my original statement either way.

He replies:

Prescriptivism is to linguistics what Creationism is to biology. As an actual student of actual philology, it irritates and upsets me when ignorant prescriptivists insist that they know what "true" language is and take offense when people won't conform to their arbitrary rules. Because that is what language is: arbitrary. Linguistics is study of language-use in real-world context. Prescriptivism is insistence that there is some sort of "true" language complete separate from humanity and people need to be educated to use the "correct" form. It is also worthless bullshit.

English is also not a Romance language! English is a part of the Germanic (or possibly Nordic) language family, and while it has a whole bunch of Latinic loanwords, it is in no way "based" on Latin. Outright misinformation is taking your case even further in the crapper, as you put it.

Believe or not, people outside Indo-European language-families have names for celestial bodies, as well, and they are, in fact, not wrong for having those names. Sol and Luna are Latin names, nothing more or less. They are not Chinese, Bantu or Finnish names of the same objects, not even English.

Language is not completely arbitrary. I don't care how many people use "ain't" in everyday conversations. It's still not a proper word. Just because millions of people say something doesn't make it correct. I understand that languages evolve and grow over time. New words are created when the need arises (such as when the television was invented, it needs a word). Taking a word or term from one thing and using it to describe something else completely is just ignorant to what the term actually means and only leads to confusion and dilution of the true meaning of the word or term. We're talking about the English language here. If insisting that "there is some sort of true language complete separate from humanity and people need to be educated to use the correct form" is "worthless bullshit," then I'm sure every English teacher I've ever known would like to have some words with you, sir.

As far as other languages and cultures having their own names for the Sun and Moon... I never said they didn't. I never said they were wrong. They can call them whatever they want. They're not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing ENGLISH. In the English language, the word "Solar" is based on the name "Sol," which just happens to be the Latin name for OUR SUN. It's one, distinct object. It doesn't matter where the name came from. It doesn't matter if it's Latin, or German, or Nordic. What matters is that right now in the English language (which is what I'm talking about), the word "Solar" refers to one thing, and one thing only. Therefore, referring to other planetary systems as "Solar systems" is WRONG. Other stars are not named Sol.

When I read his last reply, I did a little research and found out that I was indeed wrong about the origins of the English language. I apologized about being incorrect on that point, but I never got another reply back. Even though I was wrong about that one thing in particular, I still stand by the rest of my statements. I want to know why he thinks I'm wrong. I would like other people's points of view as well. Thoughts?