Talk:Uranus

What's going on with "Astronomy Cast: Uranus" reference?

The link in it takes to the edit window for that section of the article. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well. That was ... weird. Fixed, anyway. Thanks for spotting it. Serendi^podous 13:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

axial tilt, 98 degrees ?

Seems like 82 would be more logical.CorvetteZ51 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I also find the axial tilt of 98 to be strange. In the section of the article where it is discussed, the article seems to state that the preferred convention is to label the north pole as that one above the plane of the solar system. Following that convention, would not the north pole be tilted 82 deg?

thanks Ed Sproles Edinfo (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In Uranus' case, the north pole actually ends up being on the opposite side of the plane than most planets. Either that, or the inclination is 82 degrees and the rotation is retrograde. --Patteroast (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that astronomers just find retrograde rotation to be really weird and unlikely, and assume it doesn't happen (when it's possible to assume that; exceptions are rare), which means (by the rules of math, basically) that the angle in question HAS to be 98 degrees, once that assumption is made. Patteroast's comment, immediately above mine, is absolutely correct, and explains the only two options possible. 64.72.43.69 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't North and South pole defined by rotation (I'm assuming you're not talking about magnetic pole right)?--99.237.222.73 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Change in Pronunciation Involving Carl Sagan

I remember when Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" first came on television. Before that, everyone called this planet's name something that sounds like "your anus," and Sagan got really, really tired of that, as well as the snickering of 5th-9th graders, so at some point he started pronouncing it "urine us" instead (like that's better). That caught on, and was the predominant pronunciation in America for many years, but recently the original pronunciation seems to be making a comeback.

That's all based on personal observations and recollections; I can't edit the article on the basis of those non-encyclopedic sources. However, the fact that the pronunciation of this planet changed for a couple of decades or so is significant, and should be included if anyone can find suitable sources to back it up. I have not found any, but if anyone else does, please add such a section to the article. In as serious a tone as possible, of course, as befits an encyclopedia. 64.72.43.69 (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Urine us" as you put it, is the original pronunciation. Remember, when it was discovered in the 18th century most educated people could still speak Latin. "Your anus" is a newer variant that has caught on. Serendi^podous 17:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. See below.Moonraker12 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation, yet again

How many times is this conversation going to take place? I thought this paragraph (Nomenclature) was stable.
Your pronunciation (the “astronomers preferred version”) is NOT Latin. The source given does NOT say that ( it says that is how the Daily Mail (that trustworthy newspaper of record) says the BBC say it, which is something altogether different). “U” pronounced as “You”, and “a” as “ay”, is entirely English (probably something to do with the Great Vowel Shift). In Latin “u” is “oo”, and “a” is usually “ah”.
So this repeated claim for your preferred pronunciation as “classical”, or because “educated people could still speak Latin” when Uranus was discovered, is entirely spurious. If the scatological implications were absent then, it’s more likely the majority of people didn’t use the word “anus”, than anything else. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether Latin pronunciations would have said "you" or "oo" is beside the point. The point is that Latin pronunciation places the stress on the first syllable, which would discourage the "ay" sound. And what evidence do you have that it was pronounced "your anus" at the time of Herschel? Serendi^podous 15:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of the comment is that some people pronounce the name as in Latin, or at least as they think that Latin should be pronounced, not that everyone speaks Latin. We don't give the actual "Latin" pronunciation because that would spark edit wars over the proper pronunciation of Latin names in English. kwami (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to rely on The Daily Mail: The BBC publication Oxford BBC guide to pronunciation is the same as the OED, as cited in the article, and actually uses the phrase "yoor-uh-nuhss...preferred usage of astronomers". Is there scope for including this, or is the existing one enough? --Old Moonraker (talk) (no relation)

It's always better to go with the more authoritative source, especially when the one source is quoting the other. Serendi^podous 02:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference from BBC added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

(outdent)Some replies
OM:I've got no issue with "yoor-uh-nuhss" being the preferred pronunciation of astronomers (well I have, but not for here) nor that the astronomers preference should take precedence in this article. What does get up my nose is this repeated claim of a classical pedigree for it which it does not have. User:64.72.43.69 up above suggested it stems from Carl Sagan, and that seems likely enough to me; the first person I heard use it was Heather Couper, in the 1980's.
Serendipodous: I don’t see how your source helps your case; It says English people pronounce Latin the way they pronounce English, and if you want the traditional pronunciation you should go to the Catholic liturgy, which mirrors Italian. So it is entirely about pronunciation, not stress at all. As for evidence of how English people pronounce it in Herschel’s time, I don’t think either the BBC or the Daily Mail go back that far, so my guess is as good as yours, I think.
Kwami:This is a Greek word, so how it's pronounced in Latin is a bit of a red herring; but this whole "stress on the first syllable" business is flawed, to me. SPQR is "Sen-ah-tus Pop-oo-lus-qway Rom-ah-nus", as far as I know, with the stress on the penultimate syllable, so the whole premis is off. And the statement is not supported by the source, so it shouldn't be there ( I notice you've put it back). Moonraker12 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

MR12, stress is all I'm referring to. In order to pronounce Uranus as "your anus" you have to place the stress on the middle syllable. The alternate pronunciation places the stress on the first syllable, as in Latin. Serendi^podous 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And where is your evidence that putting a stress on the first syllable in this case is “as in Latin”?

Also, if the stress is the only point being made, why Latin? why not any language where the stress falls on the first syllable? The source given claims the stress is on the first syllable, “as used by the BBC”; why mention Latin at all? Unless you really are trying to imply a Latin origin for your preferred version, which is the allegation I’m making.Moonraker12 (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided the cite that showed that Uranus, in Latin, is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable. And "Uranus" is a Latin word. If it were the original Greek, it would have used the Greek "-os" nominative instead of the Latin "-us". Serendi^podous 09:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

From Latin Pronunciation - a Beginner's Guide (BBC again, but not one of their definitive publications this time):

• "If a word has only two syllables, the accent will fall on the first syllable eg, ámo, únus.
• If a word has more than two syllables the stress will fall on the second last syllable if that syllable contains a long or a short vowel followed by two consonants, eg amátis, deféssus.
• Otherwise the stress will fall on the third last syllable, eg celériter, sollícitus."

Any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Serendip, your cite doesn’t say that, unless you are seeing it different to me. take another look (this has the first paragraph of a piece on pronunciaton, which doesn’t mention stresses at all). Though it does support your position that the initial "U" is pronounced "Yoo", as in today’s English, and unlike Latin. But I do take your point about this being a Latin version of a Greek name.

And yes, OM, it does help, as I’ve been going by what I was taught (Latin as she is spoken by the pimply English schoolboy!). Though in this case I’m not clear how you are using it. It says there that stress on the first syllable applies to two syllable words; if longer the stress is further in. And it gives am-a-tis as an example of a three syllable word. With the vowels sounds given, that would make our word here Uhr-ahn-uhs, or Ooh-rahn-uhs, depending on if the initial U was short or long.

And, why is it so important? The text already has "The pronunciation of the name Uranus preferred among astronomers is /ˈjʊərənəs/, with stress on the first syllable", which is not in dispute. (Although the statement “the former pronunciation also saves embarrassment” is really a moot point; I don’t know why anyone thinks it’s an improvement...) Moonraker12 (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Amátis would only be pronounced that way if the 2nd a is long: Amātis. If the a were short, it would be ámatis. That's what we have here: the a in Ūranus is short. (Thus the utility of adding the Latin only as long as we indicate vowel length.) kwami (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kwami : OK, that makes sense (though it’s a shame none of the sources here actually say that). But that leads to the question, what is it that tells you the "a" in Uranus is short, rather than long? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Latin, when written with macrons. Latin preserved Greek vowel length, and the form Ūranus shows that the a was short. (This is rarely written out explicitly, but you will occasionally see Ūrănŭs.) Also, long ᾱ is uncommon in Greek, because in pre-Attic Greek all ᾱ became ω, so any long alphas in Attic were borrowed from other dialects or were otherwise subsequent developments, such as Μίμᾱς from older Μίμανς. Also, if you have a good Greek dictionary, such as Liddell and Scott, they indicate the long/short distinction in the headings to their entries, and they have Ὀυρᾰνός. kwami (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

I remember sometime in the 1980's (does anybody have a date) Uranus was in the news and this was the first time that I had heard the 'polite' pronunciation. This was picked up by the series Spitting Image who assumed (as did I) that newsreaders were being coy. They did a wonderful sketch about a new moon of Jupiter called "Boom-Holly" and spelt "bumhole". The fact is that nobody ever tries to force a new pronunciation on uranium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.141.94 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would assume it was around 1986 when Voyager 2 had its flyby. As for uranium, elements often seem to have quite different pronunciations than the words they're derived from. Example: Americium, named after America. I've only heard it pronounced 'am-er-ISS-ee-um'. There's a tendency to shift the stress to right before -ium, so I don't think that's a really helpful argument. --Patteroast (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a week, now, and there’s been no reply here, so I’ll restate my contention that the phrase “as in Latin” should be removed as it is a) misleading b) redundant and c) unsupported by sources.
Serendipodous: your source says only that the English pronunciation of Latin vowels follows English usage, and is unlike that in Latin.
Old Moonraker: your source says the "stress on the first syllable" rule applies in two syllable words, and is ambiguous about longer words.
Kwami: your suggestion that the "a" in Uranus is short, begs the question "what makes it so?" ( and I think the answer is perilously close to “ because the stress is on the first syllable”, which brings us in a big circle).
And your position, citizens, also suggests that the Romans took a Greek word (pronounced oo-rahn-os) and changed it (to uhr-uhn-us, or is it yoo-run-us?/yuh-ruh-nus?); but that all the languages derived from Latin have abandoned this (Italian, Spanish oo-rahn-oh; French, Romanian ooh-rahn-us): All except English, which has managed to keep it unadulterated, in its proper Latin form? Hmm?
So unless someone can come up with something, I propose taking the phrase out. Response? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've extended the OED reference to cite that the word arrived in English from the Greek via the Latin; this is a different argument and, as far as I can see, not in dispute. However, the OED rendering of the Latin as "Ūranus" may be relevant. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in English we pronounce Greek Classical names with Latin stress placement. That's been the norm since at least Shakespeare's day. So stress assignment in English depends on vowel weight, and never on Greek stress, which is utterly irrelevant. The alpha in Ouranos is short, so the stress is on the first syllable. (Of course, many words are idiosyncratic, and the alt. pronunciation of Uranus is an example.) kwami (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, fair enough; if the OED gives the Latin as Ūranus I can live with that, I reckon, though I have to say I’m really surprised. But, that would still make the pronunciation ooh-rah-nus, or uh-rah-nus, which is still some way away from a Latin pedigree for yoo-rah-nus, and still leaves the statement “as in Latin” misleading. (And the comment, that the Greek stress is utterly irrelevant to pronouncing a Greek word in English, (if that's what it meant) speaks volumes (I’m reminded of HG Wells’ comment about ploughing the Little-go). And I still think the whole section protests too much.Moonraker12 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

There is a fault somewhere in the archiving process, so the threads are out of sequence. I've moved content from archive 4 dated June 2008 to March 2009 to a new page (archive 6), to correct that; and I'll try and fix the fault. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done (I think); perhaps someone who knows about the automatic archiving function can check. Or we could disable it and do the archiving manually. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think this is working properly, so I've disabled it. It's probably better to archive manually, say when threads are about 6 months old, or in half-year/one year clumps. I hope that's OK with everyone. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)