Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
So the example now given is a mistake of using the Moon's name as a descriptor, and the solution is to take a random language's word which means "moon" instead, and use that as the proper name for the Moon.

I really think this problem is uncommon enough that it likely doesn't warrant any solution other than simple editing, and even if a different solution is needed, sporadically resorting to other languages (which alternate language is used isn't even consistent, i should note) seems like it's needlessly confusing itself - is it named the Moon or Luna? Or maybe Selene? If absolutely necessary to use an alternate phrasing, wouldn't "Earth's moon" be exactly as accurate without any implications, even if unintended, that it has a different English/scientific name?

Ignoring that in all likelihood most uses of Luna are in the belief that it's the actual name of the Moon.
When I am writing a piece that talks about lunar regolith, and the lunar day, I really don't see how a reader with more than one brain cell could be confused as to what Luna was referring to. It is certainly less confusing than The Moon (yes, the 'The' in The Moon should be capitalised. The IAU can control the names, but they do not control grammar, and the 'The' is part of the name). Luna isn't a random choice, or even Italian. It is going back to the Latin, consistent with the adjective. Completely with you that the other choices are wrong though. I agree that it might have been better if we had referred to the other moons as satellites originally too, but we didn't. Instead we got a 'Hoover' scenario, where a proper noun was genericised. Not ideal, but it happens. The question is what to do next with the language.

The Moon is not a person who could be offended by us calling it the wrong thing, or a company like Hoover that wants to protect their trademark. Context specific shorthand is normal use of language, and arbitrary relabelling for the purposes of clarity is also fine. For example; If you have a gaming group all called John then they will probably come up with context specific names for each other. Calling The Moon 'Luna' when there are other moons in scope is a shorthand that is quite tidy, in that it doesn't need explaining. The Moon would lose nothing rebranding to Luna, but would escape the genericization. Earth is unlikely to get another moon, so 'the moon' in terms of near earth contexts will still be unambiguous.

Earth's moon absolutely would be just fine in terms of clarity, but carries a possessive bias and is a little less concise. This is fine if you are writing science, but not so good for sci-fi or speculative futurism. Once there are 10,000 people living there, they are not going to be calling the rock they live on Earth's moon, or even The Moon (still implies subservience). It is impossible to know what they would end up calling home, but Luna at least is clear to people now and I would put money on it being the eventual outcome. I bring this up because you are wrong in saying that it is an uncommon problem not worth solving, at least for me. It is surprisingly annoying. If pushed I could probably even write a story about how insistence at calling it 'The Moon' over 'Luna' could cause significant political tensions between the two.

I know what the IAU decided 50 years ago, but I also believe it was moronic. I understand the value of consistent convention. I believe we get more back from bringing the proper noun into consistency with the adjective though, as the understanding is already there.