Talk:486958 Arrokoth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Association of name with Maryland?

I know the press release implied it, but were the Powhatan from Maryland? Everything I can find, including the Wikipedia article, says they lived in the Virginia tidewater. And, looking at the press release more carefully, it associated Space Telescope Institute, APL and the Powhatan with the Chesapeake Bay area. Maryland's mentioned, but the wording doesn't directly connect it to the Powhatan. Does that mean we should change this article's section on the origin of Arrokoth or does the article on the Powhatan need correction? Fcrary (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fcrary: I've changed the wording of the section, though I'm a bit unsure if I've completely resolved your issue. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The EB article says,

Powhatan War, (1622–44), relentless struggle between the Powhatan Indian confederacy and early English settlers in the tidewater section of Virginia and southern Maryland.

Powhatan, confederacy of at least 30 Algonquian-speaking North American Indian tribes that once occupied most of what is now tidewater Virginia, the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay, and possibly southern Maryland.

At msa.maryland.gov (Maryland at a glance), it says,

Composed of Algonquin tribes, the Powhatan Confederacy stretched from the Carolinas to Maryland, and was the primary governing body encountered by European settlers.

POCOMOKE ... A member of the Powhatan Nation, the tribe was found in what today are Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester counties.

Centered in Virginia, the Powhatan Confederacy was the largest organized body of tribes in the Americas during the early days of European settlement.

Located on the Eastern Shore, the Accohannock had great standing among their tribal neighbors. Part of the Powhatan Nation, the Accohannock maintained a peaceful coexistence with European settlers. ... Emigration and assimilation have greatly reduced the Accohannock's population, but they still maintain a presence in Somerset County. The Accohannock Indian Tribal Museum is found at Marion Station, Maryland. On December 19, 2017, the Accohannock Tribe was formally recognized by the State of Maryland (Executive Order 01.01.2017.31).

One of the largest tribes in the Powhatan Confederacy, the Pamunkey tribe was centered in northern Virginia, with villages in Charles, Prince George's and St. Mary's counties, Maryland. With the expansion of European settlement, the Pamunkey consolidated, abandoning many of their villages, including all those in Maryland.

So, although there appears to be plenty of connection to Maryland, there isn't any connection to Baltimore (where John Hopkins is), which is quite a ways further north. In what would be Baltimore they spoke Piscataway, a dialect of Nanticoke, also an Algonkian language, and also poorly known. Current revival attempts are using notes from Thomas Jefferson. I don't know why the team chose Powhatan, unless it was just that they were familiar with the name from Pocahontas or that the U had a Powhatan dictionary in their library but not Piscataway/Nanticoke. I would think that we'd know the word for 'sky' in Nanticoke, but Siebert did choose to work on Powhatan to get an idea of what the Southeastern Algonquian languages were like, and they were spoken across NC, VA, MD and DE, so maybe our records of Nanticoke really are too fragmentary. Also, 'Powhatan' was not necessarily a single language, and Strachey collected his material in Jamestown, not in Maryland. Siebert believes that the primary dialect in the material is Chickahominy, with a second dialect that may have been Pamunkey, and indeed it was a Pamunkey elder who officiated the Arrokoth naming ceremony. It was spoken in both Virginia and Maryland. Consider also our Pamunkey language, which indicates we can't even be sure based on recorded Pamunkey vocab (from 1844) that it was even Algonquian -- though from what I've skimmed, Siebert doesn't seem to share such reservations. — kwami (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

pronunciation

Given Strachey's respelling and the primary stress on the first syllable, /ARR-ə-koth/ is the expected pronunciation. Some people might however pronounce it with a final /t/, as Siebert reconstructs it. I added that to the note but commented it out. Has anyone found an instance of this being spoken, maybe in a video of the naming ceremony? I can't find anything. Of course there's no reason to think they had any idea how it was pronounced, but their pronunciation might catch on. — kwami (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I suspect /ˈɑːɹəkɒθ/ will be the standard. That's how I am pronouncing it in my head. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 04:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

According to our Powhatan article, that would be closer to the original. I wonder if the first <ar> was intended to be the sound of 'car'. But Powhatan pronunciation is uncertain (even assuming our article is a reliable summary of its source), and in English "arr" is generally pronounced as in "marry". — kwami (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I just checked the OED, for A and B words that have a stressed prevocalic <arr> that are given an English pronunciation, and they *all* have the vowel of 'marry' w unless they're derivatives of words where the r isn't intervocalic, like 'bar' (barrable, barry, etc.), which keep their root vowel. (And also in my dialect 'barrio' has the 'bar' vowel.) Not counting obvious derivatives, there are

Arracacha, arrah, arrant, arras, arrasine, arrendator, arrenotokous, arrentation, Arretine, arrha, arrhythmy, arrière-ban, arris, arrish, arrogant, arrogate, arrow, Arry, barrace, barrack, barraclade, barracoon, barracuda, barrad, barrage, barramundi, barrandite, barras, barrator, barratry, barrel, barren, barret, barricade, barricado, barrier, barrikin, barrio, barrister, barrow, barrulet.

Given that that's a sixth of the <arr> words in the OED, I think it's safe to say that the 'marry' vowel is standard. Of course, the New Horizons team could come up with something else (if they even all use the same pronunciation), and that could catch on like you said. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth from movie The New World (2005) this scene has the word spoken with interpreted sound.  Ohsin  22:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

References

That's a lovely find!

At 1m18s in that clip, it sounds something like [ɑɾəˈkʷɵt]. But I suspect that the "k" is going to be pronounced /k/, not /kw/, the "th" will probably end up being anglicized as /θ/ rather than /t/, and the final "o" as /ɒ/ rather than /ʌ/. If so, there's not much point in trying to be authentic with just the first vowel against the expectation from the spelling.

For those of us who conflate the vowels in Mary, marry and merry, the result won't be very close to the Powhatan, and the 'bar' vowel would sound better. But for those of us who keep them distinct, the 'marry' vowel is actually fairly close. — kwami (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:Here is another sample from behind the scenes of movie with actor preparing her act.  Ohsin  12:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That one sounds like [ˈɑd̪ekwɑt̚]. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

category

Now cat'd as names from mythology, but this isn't mythological. Should we just leave it, or is it worth creating a cat for MP's that are intended to capture a specific culture, but not through their mythos? — kwami (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Not from mythology. Delete ASAP. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

But shouldn't we have something equivalent? More than just 'named MPs', I mean. I suspect there are a fair number of MPs named for some concept in a culture the nominators wanted to celebrate or honor, and it looks to be a trend. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I suspect there is some mythological connotation, but I can't figure out what it is. According to the IAU's web page on "Naming Astronomical Objects", their rule for an object like Arrokoth requires it: "Objects sufficiently outside Neptune's orbit that orbital stability is reasonably assured for a substantial fraction of the lifetime of the solar system (so called Cubewanos or "classical" TNOs) are given mythological names associated with creation." Since Powhatan is a dead language, I suspect their mythology is as well. Does anyone know anything about Algonquian creation myths in general? Fcrary (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The team [...] wanted to find a name that had a special connection to Maryland, and since "all objects in the Kuiper belt are named after creation deities," according to Stern, finding a name used by indigenous people who were from Maryland was the perfect fit. "Maryland has played such an important role in this mission. From the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab to NASA people at NASA Goddard to the Space Telescope Institute, let's find a creation deity from indigenous Americans who populated Maryland long ago," Stern said. "We looked through that dictionary and liked this one best. ... So I thought it was aspirational in three different ways and that seemed to me like a home run again."[1] That's how Alan Stern explains how the name was found. There is no deity called Arrokoth, though. It's a word from the dictionary, related to something the team associated with mythology (the sky). Whether that's appropriate is a different question. That association "sky=deity" may even be cultural bias. I see no indication that the sky had any mythological connotation to the Powhatan whatsoever. The etymology of the word links it to an older word for cloud,[2] which appears rather mundane to me. And of course the Powhatan were not from Maryland, either... Renerpho (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC) I'm no expert in Powhatan mythology though, so if I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit that it was me who was culturally biassed. 08:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

For some general Algonquin legends and myths, see [3]. There are water spirits, spirits associated with the forest, spirits associated with animals. No mention of the sky at all. There is something about the wind, in the context of seasons (bringer of winter). Some Algonquin creation myths: Nanabozho myth, mentioning the Sun's journey accross the sky, Gisoolg the Great Spirit Creator, mentioning Nisgam's (the Sun's?) travel accross the sky, the great teacher Kloskurbeh (no sky), and Gluskonba Makes the People - trees, but no sky. The only mythological figure I can find is a personification of the Sun, not the sky itself. Renerpho (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There is also The Algonquin Legends of New England, which is not about the Powhatan (they were extinct for a century at the time this was written), but close. The book includes many creation myths. The word "sky" is mentioned 18 times, exclusively in the sense of a location or for descriptive purposes (a rainbow appeared in the sky; the sky is red, we shall have a cold night; to be blue like the clear blue sky). The sky does not appear to have a specific meaning in Algonquin mythology, let alone be its own deity. Renerpho (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

According to this 1967 map from the Smithsonian, the Powhatan were only in Virginia. But I've read that they were also in southern Maryland. The team might have consulted with someone who knows better than that map, which is quite simplified.

The word didn't even mean 'sky', but 'cloud'. At least according to Siebert, who concluded that 'sky' was a mistranslation. Though the root did evolve into 'sky' in another Algonquian language or two (like Arapaho, if I remember correctly), albeit none close by. No indication that there's any mythological connection that I've seen. Though a connection to creation is no longer required, a mythological connection still is. Maybe the IAU made an exception, or just didn't pay much attention. — kwami (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, you can check out the book online here. '51 CLOUD' is the entry. Abbreviations are explained on p 449, with PA for Proto-Algonquian, C Cree, O Ojibwe, M Menomini, F Fox, S Shawnee, D Delaware, P Penobscot, Mi Miami, Ps Passamaquoddy. — kwami (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The reconstructed PA word a-lahkwatwi means "cloud", but the Powhatan word arrokoth does mean "sky".[4] Renerpho (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not a RS. AFAIK, our only source for this word is Strachey, and he glossed the singular as 'sky' and the plural as 'clouds'. Presumably because of the plural and that in neighboring languages the root means 'cloud', Siebert concluded that this was one of Strachey's many mistranslaions, which is why he lists "arrokoth" under 51 CLOUD. There are ppl who've examined this material since Siebert (1975), and if you can find anything from them that draws a different conclusion that would be a different matter, but currently we only have one RS, and it says the word means "cloud". — kwami (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Smith had osies 'heavens', but so far I haven't been able to find it in Siebert. (The archive search doesn't work well.) I wonder if Smith's <Oſies, Heavens.> and <Okees, Gods.> might not be the same word, if he misread his handwriting when he submitted his notes for publication. — kwami (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether the etymology derives from "sky" or "cloud", it has nothing to do with mythology.Rowan Forest (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

How should we handle the name Ultima Thule now?

It was popular in the press at the time of the NH flyby, but Ultima Thule was never an official term for it. Now the term is really relegated to the history books, and except for those instances (and clarifying that Ultima Thule = Arrokoth), the name isn't used anymore. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 17:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it should still be mentioned in the Infobox, Introduction and "Nickname and designation" section, but should be changed elsewhere in the article. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

When 2018 VG18 was discovered, I was involved in a debate on whether to italicize the nickname to show that it was unofficial or bold it - it was decided to bold it. I suggested moving it towards the end of the lead to avoid suggesting too much importance to it, and that was followed. Perhaps a similar thing could be done here? I don't want people to think that this object is still called Ultima Thule (or still could be called Ultima Thule). ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is a valid and useful precedent to perform that change, in addition of my suggestion. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem with moving it until later is that it gave its name to the two lobes, and those names won't make any sense without understanding that they're the two parts of the full name. They aren't official either, of course, and I don't know if the team will be proposing them, but for now they're the only names we have.

We could (and should) mention that 'Ultima Thule' was (past tense) a nickname used by the team before the official name was accepted, and that it's now defunct. — kwami (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure that it is really defunct? That sounds like a reasonable conclusion but it is somewhat WP:CRYSTAL, given that not a single scientific paper so far uses the new name. There is the possibility that a number of papers that use the old name are still to make it through the slow process from submission to publication. The name might wear itself out eventually... I remember Sputnik Planum on Pluto (now Sputnik Planitia) still in use as of earlier this year, even though it was found to not be a planum long before that. Renerpho (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

As of now, the name "Ultima Thule" is still used throughout much of the mission website. The main page links to this right now when you click on "Arrokoth Facts". Now, that's certainly due to changes to the website that are out of sync, but that doesn't make it less confusing. Renerpho (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, heading that way anyway. It always was intended to be a temporary name. But regardless IMO it should be kept in the info box and lead because it's had so much press coverage under that name. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

How should the naming of the lobes "Ultima" and "Thule" be handled? It seems like it was a play on the nick name that is not funny anymore. It would seem more encyclopedic to simply refer to them as the larger and smaller lobe. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources still call those lobes "Ultima" and "Thule"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The New Horizons team often referred Arrokoth's lobes as "Ultima" and "Thule" in their May 2019 Science paper and in the 2019 meetings of EPSC-DPS conreference. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Arrokoth now!

I've used a script to update all instances of MU69 to Arrokoth. Feel free to add any back that were accidentally edited out. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 00:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, please check the New Horizons article and correct my formatting there, please. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

For anybody not of the Powhatan tribe, it is still Ultima Thule. Since this is the English Wikipedia, the European (Latin) name Ultima Thule should be used. Native Americans are free to call it Arrokoth in their language and their Wikipedia.102.166.239.105 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Mortran

This is not true. Officially the object is called Arrokoth. I am not sure that you realize how naming astronomical objects work. Names aren't just from Latin and Greek. There are many names from many cultures represented in the sky, especially with more recently named objects. Kiviuq is from Inuit mythology, Haumea is Hawaiian, and Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà is from the Juǀʼhoansi tribe in Namibia. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 14:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Rolling down hills

Quote:

The surface gravity on the hilltops of Arrokoth is weaker compared to the surface gravity at lower elevations, thus material is likely to roll down the hills toward lower elevations, where surface gravity is stronger.

I haven't consulted the quoted source, but that is plain nonsense, isn't it? When I roll down a hill, it is not caused by the difference between gravity at the top and the bottom; it is caused by gravity as such. Right?--Nø (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know... I see your point, but the truth is that the gravity is stronger at the bottom of the hill than the top of the hill when you roll down a hill on Earth. Whether that gradient is what is causing you to move or not seems like a general relativity question and not necessarily wrong. I think the way it is described is fine for the scope of this article. Do you have a suggestion for a better way to phrase it? --Yarnalgo _talk 17:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yarnalgo is right that general relativity can be interpreted in this way. It is certainly not the most common way to interpret gravity, at least outside of contexts that are particularly concerned about relativistic effects (which play no role for Arrokoth). However, I agree with Nø that this sentence is confusing without further explanation. If the source actually said this, I could see why it's in the article, but looking at the source, this appears like awkward paraphrasing to me that serves no benefit. Here's what is said in the video, starting at the 28:45 minute mark: The hills of course create gravitational gradients, the hills, where things can slide downhill. And there's light streaks across this small world, for instance in Maryland Crater, there's a number of bright streaks that could be related to basically low gravity avalanches. Even though the gravity of Ultima Thule is around a millimetre per second squared, or 1/10,000th the gravity of Earth, things still fall downhill.[5] I suggest to change the sentence, to a less "involved" interpretation of gravity that focuses on the main point, which is that gravity on Arrokoth is strong enough so that things roll downhill. Renerpho (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC) -- Just for completeness: Here is an accessible explanation of why gravity actually is caused by the difference between space time curvature at the top and at the bottom.Vsauce: Which Way is Down? Renerpho (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You don't need relativity to argue that an object rolling down a hill is caused by something being different at top and bottom. You just have to invoke potential energy, which is higher at the top and lower at the bottom, and things roll down to minimize energy, so to speak. Neither of these correct observations makes the wording in the article correct, so I've now changed it. Not sure if it is good, though.--Nø (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems better. Renerpho (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, that sounds good. --Yarnalgo _talk 17:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed

@Urhixidur: Regarding your recent edit, you are right that in the sentence In the case for 2014 MU₆₉, the first letter 'M' corresponds to the second half-month of June 2014 while the succeeding letter 'U' indicates that it is the 20th object discovered on the 69th cycle of discoveries, the 69 is to be replaced with 70, because the count starts at 0 (the first cycle is not numbered). However, right now it is unclear from the article where that 70 comes from. That it results from 69+1 is not obvious. This should be changed here and on all the other articles that have been edited recently (I see the same change in 2018 VG18, (225088) 2007 OR10 and possibly others). Renerpho (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)