1. There's no particular reason to think that noun phrases such as 'straw man' and 'crack[ed ]pot' should obey the same rules as nouns combined with established and well-defined prefixes. Or will you seriously claim that I shouldn't expect to be able to derive the meaning of 'microscope' from micro- and scope? 2. Even if there were, the etymology of those is pretty clear from their individual definitions ('pot' is well attested as a slang term for head or brain, as is 'dexter' for adept rather than stictly right hand). 3. Even if they weren't, the mere fact that things have been done badly in the past is no argument for doing them badly in the present and future. 4. The data points don't make the rule, they simply support that the prefix as used in English (which is admittedly rarely) consistently has the meaning given by the OED for the prefix and the meaning one expects from the Latin. 5. It is absurd1 to suggest that cislunar is somehow derived from translunar by analogy to chemistry. 'Cislunar', like 'cisalpine', simply means 'on the same side of the moon [as the speaker]'. It happens that all of the speakers involved in the orbital planning are on the same side of the moon as each other, so it happens that no ambiguity arises; if they weren't, it would. 6. My objection has nothing to do with 'leav[ing] something out'. The moon, like the Alps, has sides, and one can be reasonably said to be on the same or opposite side of it as another. Gender can in no reasonably-conceivable sense be so said. Even if it did, the term 'cisgender' would be meaningless as used and would only make any kind of sense to describe someone who is on the "same side of gender" (whatever that would mean in this strange hypothetical universe) as the speaker is, which is clearly not the sense intended by its advocates (nor one of any real use whatsoever).
(The chemical use of the terms (and para-/ortho-/meta-, and R/S, and others) arises only from chemistry's unpleasant obsession with the anthropomorphizing of atoms, and it's a serious mistake to try and reason by analogy therefrom without considering this fact. It's also worth pointing out that IUPAC has deperecated the use of cis/trans terminology partially for this reason and prefers the German E/Z (entgegen/zusammen) notation, which is much more rigorous.)
1 Of course, the mere fact that it is absurd doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true, but it does mean that I (reasonably) won't believe you without a credible source. If you do have one (people have been known to do absurd things), I'll refer you to point #3.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
2. Even if there were, the etymology of those is pretty clear from their individual definitions ('pot' is well attested as a slang term for head or brain, as is 'dexter' for adept rather than stictly right hand).
3. Even if they weren't, the mere fact that things have been done badly in the past is no argument for doing them badly in the present and future.
4. The data points don't make the rule, they simply support that the prefix as used in English (which is admittedly rarely) consistently has the meaning given by the OED for the prefix and the meaning one expects from the Latin.
5. It is absurd1 to suggest that cislunar is somehow derived from translunar by analogy to chemistry. 'Cislunar', like 'cisalpine', simply means 'on the same side of the moon [as the speaker]'. It happens that all of the speakers involved in the orbital planning are on the same side of the moon as each other, so it happens that no ambiguity arises; if they weren't, it would.
6. My objection has nothing to do with 'leav[ing] something out'. The moon, like the Alps, has sides, and one can be reasonably said to be on the same or opposite side of it as another. Gender can in no reasonably-conceivable sense be so said. Even if it did, the term 'cisgender' would be meaningless as used and would only make any kind of sense to describe someone who is on the "same side of gender" (whatever that would mean in this strange hypothetical universe) as the speaker is, which is clearly not the sense intended by its advocates (nor one of any real use whatsoever).
(The chemical use of the terms (and para-/ortho-/meta-, and R/S, and others) arises only from chemistry's unpleasant obsession with the anthropomorphizing of atoms, and it's a serious mistake to try and reason by analogy therefrom without considering this fact. It's also worth pointing out that IUPAC has deperecated the use of cis/trans terminology partially for this reason and prefers the German E/Z (entgegen/zusammen) notation, which is much more rigorous.)
1 Of course, the mere fact that it is absurd doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true, but it does mean that I (reasonably) won't believe you without a credible source. If you do have one (people have been known to do absurd things), I'll refer you to point #3.