Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Nomenclature Discussion from "prep of HCl in isoOH?"

Nomenclature Discussion from "prep of HCl in isoOH?"

blogfast25 - 21-2-2014 at 06:12

And besides, few things make you appear as noobish as slavishly preferring IUPAC over trivial names. "Ethanoic acid"

Nothing wrong with being 'noobish' (whatever you mean by this, I suppose the authors of peer reviewed science are all 'noobs'?)

IUPAC nomenclature is unambiguous, that's what's great about it. Its use should be encouraged, even here.

[Edited on 21-2-2014 by blogfast25]

turd - 21-2-2014 at 07:45

What kind of journals do you read where they call it "ethanoic acid"? Transactions of the Academy of the German Democratic Republic.

Edit: With search machines where you can search by structure editor, the IUPAC nomenclature lost a lot its appeal. Does it matter if you call it bromobenzene or phenyl bromide? I don't think so. If you describe a complex molecule in a paper then post a picture. The point of a paper is to effectively convey information. If I have to spend half an hour to decipher your monstrous IUPAC name, you failed in doing so and most sane referees will tell you to include a scheme. Indeed, I wonder how many systematic names are wrong because no referee can be bothered to actually read them.

Besides - if you occupy yourself with the IUPAC nomenclature you will find that some of the rules are madness. No, I don't have a working alternative, but still...

[Edited on 21-2-2014 by turd]

blogfast25 - 21-2-2014 at 08:50

Quote: Originally posted by turd

The point of a paper is to effectively convey information.
[Edited on 21-2-2014 by turd]

Lots of trivial names don't do that.

IUPAC nomenclature is progress, even if it ain't perfect. It may have lost appeal in your eyes but I see no evidence for it otherwise.

Your flippant dismissals make you look immature, possible a 'kewl', including that stupid jibe at another country.

Keep digging.

turd - 21-2-2014 at 09:05

Are you seriously defending the GDR? Do you know anyone who actually lived there?

Quote:

Your flippant dismissals make you look immature, possible a 'kewl', including that stupid jibe at another country.

Ok, I'm a kewl. At least that sounds cool and I'm in good company with >99% of all chemists, because I don't know a single one who would use terms like "ethanoic acid".

DraconicAcid - 21-2-2014 at 09:19

Quote: Originally posted by turd

Are you seriously defending the GDR? Do you know anyone who actually lived there?
...I'm in good company with >99% of all chemists, because I don't know a single one who would use terms like "ethanoic acid".

Actually, the organic instructor at my college keeps telling me to stop teaching my students the names "acetic acid" and "oxalic acid" because they are not IUPAC, and I've seen "ethanoic acid" in a number of RSC publications (that's the British Royal Society for Chemistry, by the way- nothing to do with the DDR. Last time I was in eastern Germany, they still called it Essigsaure).

turd - 21-2-2014 at 10:03

You were in eastern Germany, not the GDR. The GDR and its culture died - and good riddance. What a terribly depressing society.

Quote:

Actually, the organic instructor at my college keeps telling me to stop teaching my students the names "acetic acid" and "oxalic acid"

Those poor students - they will be laughed at once they interact with real chemists at their first conference. Don't forget that language is also used to show membership with a group (c.f. lingo). With "ethanoic acid" they won't have a good start.

A classic example of good intentions with negative consequences. How old is that instructor?

Edit: please also ask your instructor if the students are supposed to write/say

Quote:

0.1 eq. of sodium ascorbate were added as catalyst

Quote:

0.1 eq. of sodium (2R)-2-[(1S)-1,2-dihydroxyethyl]-4-hydroxy-5-oxo-2H-furan-3-olate were added as catalyst

If (s)he prefers the latter, then the (wo)man is insane and you would do well to just ignore everything (s)he says.

[Edited on 21-2-2014 by turd]

blogfast25 - 22-2-2014 at 04:26

Quote: Originally posted by turd

Are you seriously defending the GDR? Do you know anyone who actually lived there?

[...] because I don't know a single one who would use terms like "ethanoic acid".

No, I'm not 'defending the GDR' but dismissing an entire country like that is nonsensical. As regards 'Do you know anyone who actually lived there?' is childish: by that 'reasoning' 99 % of people can't have an opinion on 99 % of countries.

Your hang up about ethanoic acid is pathetic. Do you have some speech impediment or is it just reading difficulties? In what way is 'ethanoic' harder than 'acetic'? Both have merits: the first shows it's a C2 carboxylic acid, the second hints at its origins.

There are certainly cases where IUPAC isn't helpful, there are plenty where it works well. Dismissing it all like you do is puerile.

Maybe you're not a 'noob' or a 'kewl', maybe you're just a 'turd'.

blogfast25 - 22-2-2014 at 04:31

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid

A-level chemistry here is taught using IUPAC although for many substances trivial names can be used too. I was taught it too, over 30 years ago.

[Edited on 22-2-2014 by blogfast25]

turd - 22-2-2014 at 10:14

Quote:

Are you familiar with the concept of a "joke"? I have professional ties to scientists who actually were at the monday demonstrations. I have good insight into the climate back then and therefore I am allowed to joke about it.

And what is it with your straw men? I simply asked a question and your conclusion that I don't grant you an opinion is purely something you made up.

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Your hang up about ethanoic acid is pathetic. Do you have some speech impediment or is it just reading difficulties?

It's quite obviously you who has reading problems. If you read what I originally posted (emphasis added):

Quote:

And besides, few things make you appear as noobish as slavishly preferring IUPAC over trivial names. "Ethanoic acid"

This is plain and simply true and not only in this field. Noobs are those who still believe that rules have to be followed slavishly. Pros are those who know when you can break the rules and take shortcuts. See also the phenomenon of hypercorrection in linguistics.

Quote:

There are certainly cases where IUPAC isn't helpful, there are plenty where it works well. Dismissing it all like you do is puerile.

Again: learn to read.

Quote:

Maybe you're not a 'noob' or a 'kewl', maybe you're just a 'turd'.

Possibly. But one thing is certain: You're an aggressive old man and I feel sorry for you. If it makes you any more happy, consider me a noob, kewl, cook, turd or whatever you wish. I'll take any of these classifications with pride. As long as I'm not considered a bootlicker, that's fine with me.

blogfast25 - 22-2-2014 at 11:33

Quote: Originally posted by turd

You're an aggressive old man and I feel sorry for you.

I don't think you know the meaning of 'aggressive' but other than that the feeling is entirely mutual.

[Edited on 22-2-2014 by blogfast25]

bfesser - 22-2-2014 at 12:56

turd & blogfast25, stay on topic, please. If you must, continue via U2U.

turd - 23-2-2014 at 12:38

bfesser: I think the topic "chemistry lingo" is interesting and has come up before. If this is too off-topic for this thread, why not split it off the thread?

To resolve this small "dispute":

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Nothing wrong with being 'noobish' (whatever you mean by this, I suppose the authors of peer reviewed science are all 'noobs'?)

I made a quick experiment: I took the first ten articles of the first 2014 issue of the Journal of Organic Chemistry (which hopefully qualifies as peer-reviewed and organic chemists are the ones for whom systematic names are actually relevant) and looked if the authors slavishly prefer IUPAC over trivial names (where under IUPAC I understand systematic names, I figure there are different levels of acceptability and recommendation).

So a quick scan gave me:
J. Org. Chem., 2014, 79 (1)
pp 1-6: THF / DCM / acetone
pp 7-24: acetic acid / acetone / formaldehyde
pp 25-33: acetic acid / DMSO / sulfanilamide
pp 34-40: acetone / n-bromosuccinimide / glutamate
pp 41-64: acetic acid / toluene / acetone
pp 65-71: coumarin / benzoylpropionic acid / levulinic acid
pp 72-79: EDTA / palytoxin
pp 80-87: methyl acrylate / diethyl ether / neutral acetic acid (sic)
pp 88-105: caffeic acid / benzoquinone / acetone
pp 106-116: toluene / 3-phenylpropiolaldehyde (sic) / THF

So according to this experiment with an admittedly small sample size it seems that I'm correct in 10 out of 10 times.

It would be interesting to do it time-dependent, because personally I don't see the trivial names go away.

[topic restored]

bfesser - 26-2-2014 at 05:32

I've split and restored this topic at the request of several members. Discussion may continue regarding IUPAC nomenclature, but please refrain from political argument.

forgottenpassword - 26-2-2014 at 11:29

As a stand-alone thread this is pathetic. You should have left it alone rather than having "thread closed" "thread opened" "thread pruned" "thread moved" every other post. All the excessive interference makes a thread look much worse than the presence of a tiny dispute. People can resolve problems for themselves without being warned and otherwise being treated in an infantile manner.

bfesser - 26-2-2014 at 12:06

Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword

As a stand-alone thread this is pathetic. You should have left it alone rather than having "thread closed" "thread opened" "thread pruned" "thread moved" every other post.

To be blunt, that's not your decision to make.

Quote:

All the excessive interference makes a thread look much worse than the presence of a tiny dispute.

The split had less to do with the "presence of a tiny dispute" and more to do with straying from the original topic.

Quote:

People can resolve problems for themselves without being warned and otherwise being treated in an infantile manner.

You should note that I neither warned nor treated anyone in an infantile manner. I merely asked everyone to refrain from making this a political argument.

You specifically, forgottenpassword, will be treated "in an infantile manner," until you improve <a href="viewthread.php?tid=28885">your negative attitude</a>. Consider <em>this</em> a warning. Don't take this off-topic, as well!