The case of the Hebrew word for "oxygen"...
Daniel al-Autistiqui
and the naming of oxygen:
# Amusingly, his mistake is perpetuated in the name for oxygen not
only
# in English, German, and Russian, but even in modern Hebrew (humtsan,
# from hamets = sour). I assume that that was done well after the
# mistake was discovered.
#
#
A little over a week ago, he told the story once again, this time
saying:
# A curious counterexample is the modern Hebrew word for oxygen,
# humtsan, which was coined long after Lavoisier's mistake was
# corrected, but perpetuates the misnomer, being derived from hamets
# "sour". Surely the language institute might have thought of naming
it
# for fire instead!
I personally think it's silly to coin (say) a Hebrew word on the model
of equivalents in European languages, when the European words are in
fact based on long-obsolete ideas about the concept that they denote.
Can Joe back me up?
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
Harlan Messinger
> Back in 2001, Joe Fineman wrote, regarding chemist Antoine Lavoisier
> and the naming of oxygen:
>
> # Amusingly, his mistake is perpetuated in the name for oxygen not
> only
> # in English, German, and Russian, but even in modern Hebrew (humtsan,
> # from hamets = sour). I assume that that was done well after the
> # mistake was discovered.
> #
> saying:
>
> # A curious counterexample is the modern Hebrew word for oxygen,
> # humtsan, which was coined long after Lavoisier's mistake was
> # corrected, but perpetuates the misnomer, being derived from hamets
> # "sour". Surely the language institute might have thought of naming
> it
> # for fire instead!
>
> I personally think it's silly to coin (say) a Hebrew word on the model
> of equivalents in European languages, when the European words are in
> fact based on long-obsolete ideas about the concept that they denote.
> Can Joe back me up?
Can he back you up on whether you personally think it's silly? Certainly
you know better than anyone else what you think is silly.
António Marques
> # A curious counterexample is the modern Hebrew word for oxygen,
> # humtsan, which was coined long after Lavoisier's mistake was
> # corrected, but perpetuates the misnomer, being derived from hamets
> # "sour". Surely the language institute might have thought of naming
> it
> # for fire instead!
>
> I personally think it's silly to coin (say) a Hebrew word on the model
> of equivalents in European languages, when the European words are in
> fact based on long-obsolete ideas about the concept that they denote.
In this particular case, if it's as you describe it, I happen to think
you're right. When a designation has been known to be misnomer for an
extended period of time, it doesn't seem justified to calque it -
especially since the people involved should know what they were doing.
Otoh, the modern hebrew word may have been in oral use before. Or
whoever coined it didn't know much about chemistry and built it just by
analogy.
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Pierre Jelenc
> In this particular case, if it's as you describe it, I happen to think
> you're right. When a designation has been known to be misnomer for an
> extended period of time, it doesn't seem justified to calque it -
> especially since the people involved should know what they were doing.
It would be a misnomer if it were analysed every time it is used, but as a
chemist I can assure you that no chemist ever thinks of "oxygen" as "acid
maker". Ever. And that goes for Sauerstoff, and syre, and the like.
Must all Philips be lovers of horses? Must all Penelopes be weavers?
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org
Harlan Messinger
> António Marques <m....@sapo.pt> writes:
>> In this particular case, if it's as you describe it, I happen to think
>> you're right. When a designation has been known to be misnomer for an
>> extended period of time, it doesn't seem justified to calque it -
>> especially since the people involved should know what they were doing.
>
> It would be a misnomer if it were analysed every time it is used, but as a
> chemist I can assure you that no chemist ever thinks of "oxygen" as "acid
> maker". Ever. And that goes for Sauerstoff, and syre, and the like.
>
> Must all Philips be lovers of horses?
Ah. But Philo-hippos (or whatever) wasn't translated into French as
"Aimecheval" or Spanish as "Amacaballos" or English as "Horselover".
It's a non-analogy for calquing "oxygen" into Hebrew that way.
mb
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
> Pierre Jelenc wrote:
> > Must all Philips be lovers of horses?
>
> Ah. But Philo-hippos (or whatever) wasn't translated into French as
> "Aimecheval" or Spanish as "Amacaballos" or English as "Horselover".
> It's a non-analogy for calquing "oxygen" into Hebrew that way.
Stop hairsplitting and put it this way: Not all Greeks called
Philippos have ever been near a horse nor do they generally want to.
Harlan Messinger
> On May 9, 1:01 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>
>
>> Pierre Jelenc wrote:
>
>>> Must all Philips be lovers of horses?
>> Ah. But Philo-hippos (or whatever) wasn't translated into French as
>> "Aimecheval" or Spanish as "Amacaballos" or English as "Horselover".
>> It's a non-analogy for calquing "oxygen" into Hebrew that way.
>
> Stop hairsplitting
Right, the one thing is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the other in exactly
the respect on which the discussion hinges, but it's "hairsplitting".
Your powers of discernment are underwhelming.
> and put it this way: Not all Greeks called
> Philippos have ever been near a horse nor do they generally want to.
Which still doesn't address the oxygen issue because it isn't comparable.
Pierre Jelenc
How about potash? Potassium hydroxide. Do you think there's one chemist in
the entire English-speaking world who thinks "ah, yes, that stuff we used
to make from pot ashes"? It's just its name, it's not analysed.
Joe Fineman
> Back in 2001, Joe Fineman wrote, regarding chemist Antoine Lavoisier
> and the naming of oxygen:
>
> # Amusingly, his mistake is perpetuated in the name for oxygen not
> # only in English, German, and Russian, but even in modern Hebrew
> # (humtsan, from hamets = sour). I assume that that was done well
> # after the mistake was discovered.
> #
> #
> A little over a week ago, he told the story once again, this time
> saying:
>
> # A curious counterexample is the modern Hebrew word for oxygen,
> # humtsan, which was coined long after Lavoisier's mistake was
> # corrected, but perpetuates the misnomer, being derived from hamets
> # "sour". Surely the language institute might have thought of
> # naming it for fire instead!
>
> I personally think it's silly to coin (say) a Hebrew word on the model
> of equivalents in European languages, when the European words are in
> fact based on long-obsolete ideas about the concept that they denote.
> Can Joe back me up?
Well, in my last sentence I at least hinted that I thought it was
silly. However, as others on this thread have pointed out, like many
silly things, it is pretty harmless.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: The world is too full of people whose world is too full of :||
||: people. :||
mb
"Different" my cheeks. In both cases we're talking about a word that,
if analyzed consciously, become immediately intelligible to the modern
language speaker as a so-called misnomer, or not fitting the facts as
known: The oxygen calque does not generate any oxy and philippos isn't
philos of any 'ippous. I should have been more precise than "stop
hairsplitting"and explicitly requested you to stop the childish game
of deviating Philippos from the language in which it applies to
something unrelated.
As for the hinge, it is in the almost immediate loss of analytic
insight into the kind of compound name that oxygen is, no matter if
the compound is in the speaker's mother tongue and the speaker a
chemist. Very well-known and reportedly universal phenomenon that
renders discussions on how to avoid so-called "misnomers" pointless.
António Marques
> António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> writes:
>
> > In this particular case, if it's as you describe it, I happen to think
> > you're right. When a designation has been known to be misnomer for an
> > extended period of time, it doesn't seem justified to calque it -
> > especially since the people involved should know what they were doing.
>
> It would be a misnomer if it were analysed every time it is used, but as a
> chemist I can assure you that no chemist ever thinks of "oxygen" as "acid
> maker".
But that doesn't matter here. The fact seems to be that:
1 - Someone decided to import the word into a language; that person
was familiar with the thing referenced by the word.
2 - That person decided to do it by calquing; a calque builder must
know what the individual elements mean in the source and target
languages, and have them in mind at the time.
3 - If the person knew the thing and the meaning of the word
describing it, then the person must have been aware, at the time of
devising the calque, of whether the original word was a misnomer or
not.
4 - In a scientific matter such as this, the person would be expected
to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it or choosing a different
path altogether.
I can't see any flaw in the above. I suppose that either 1 failed (the
person didn't know that much chemistry), 2 failed (the person didn't
know that much greek nor hebrew), or 4 failed (the person was sloppy,
which wouldn't be reasonable for a scientist). There is another
possibility, which is that there may have been a reason to keep the
misnomer - for instance, the misnonymity itself might be important,
for some reason. I don't see that that's the case here.
It doesn't matter that people don't see it as a misnomer, ever; what
matters here is what happened at the time of (3).
Nathan Sanders
<7617b091-96f4-44d2...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
António Marques <ent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 8:18 pm, r...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
> > António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> writes:
> >
> > > In this particular case, if it's as you describe it, I happen to think
> > > you're right. When a designation has been known to be misnomer for an
> > > extended period of time, it doesn't seem justified to calque it -
> > > especially since the people involved should know what they were doing.
> >
> > It would be a misnomer if it were analysed every time it is used, but as a
> > chemist I can assure you that no chemist ever thinks of "oxygen" as "acid
> > maker".
>
> But that doesn't matter here. The fact seems to be that:
>
> 1 - Someone decided to import the word into a language; that person
> was familiar with the thing referenced by the word.
> 2 - That person decided to do it by calquing; a calque builder must
> know what the individual elements mean in the source and target
> languages, and have them in mind at the time.
> 3 - If the person knew the thing and the meaning of the word
> describing it, then the person must have been aware, at the time of
> devising the calque, of whether the original word was a misnomer or
> not.
> 4 - In a scientific matter such as this, the person would be expected
> to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it or choosing a different
> path altogether.
I don't see why anyone should believe that 4 is true. As has been
pointed out numerous times, there are plenty examples of scientists
being less than scientifically rigorous when coming up with names
(quarks, the dwarf planet Eris, various plant and animal taxonomic
names, etc.).
Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
mb
...
> I don't see why anyone should believe that 4 is true. As has been
> pointed out numerous times, there are plenty examples of scientists
> being less than scientifically rigorous when coming up with names
> (quarks, the dwarf planet Eris, various plant and animal taxonomic
> names, etc.).
>
> Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.
By the way, it would seem that government agencies are also starting
to understand the basic principle of language, viz that a tag is a tag
with no inherent meaning: In the last few years, the FDA has been
rejecting every tradename that suggests either the class or the
indication of a drug and is explicitly requesting nonsense words.
António Marques
> > 4 - In a scientific matter such as this, the person would be expected
> > to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it or choosing a different
> > path altogether.
>
> I don't see why anyone should believe that 4 is true. As has been
> pointed out numerous times, there are plenty examples of scientists
> being less than scientifically rigorous when coming up with names
> (quarks, the dwarf planet Eris, various plant and animal taxonomic
> names, etc.).
It hasn't got to do with rigour. 'Quarks' and the like are just not
expected to be interpretable, so the misnomer issue doesn't arise at
all. And it's possible to call a plant with red flowers 'caerulea',
but unless there is a reason for it, it just comes across as dumb. Of
course no one said it's *forbidden*.
> Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.
Who said they needed?
Next thing you know, some french guy will coin the term 'phonophobe'
to label people who love sound, and you'll be happy to carry it over
to english because, after all, what's in a name.
mb
> On May 10, 7:12 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > > 4 - In a scientific matter such as this, the person would be expected
> > > to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it or choosing a different
> > > path altogether.
> > Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.
>
> Who said they needed?
You did. Your #4 proposal is about avoiding misnomers.
> Next thing you know, some french guy will coin the term 'phonophobe'
> to label people who love sound, and you'll be happy to carry it over
> to english because, after all, what's in a name.
Don't know about Nathan; I'll be perfectly happy with it. It's all
Greek to the French anyway.
Nathan Sanders
<50e03cf0-e374-46e5...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
António Marques <ent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 7:12 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > > 4 - In a scientific matter such as this, the person would be expected
> > > to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it or choosing a different
> > > path altogether.
> >
> > I don't see why anyone should believe that 4 is true. As has been
> > pointed out numerous times, there are plenty examples of scientists
> > being less than scientifically rigorous when coming up with names
> > (quarks, the dwarf planet Eris, various plant and animal taxonomic
> > names, etc.).
>
> It hasn't got to do with rigour. 'Quarks' and the like are just not
> expected to be interpretable,
What about "strange quarks", "up quarks", etc.? I'm not saying that
"quark" itself should be interpretable, but surely "strange" would be.
And yet, there's nothing particularly strange about strange quarks (at
least, not distinctive from other quarks!).
> so the misnomer issue doesn't arise at
> all. And it's possible to call a plant with red flowers 'caerulea',
> but unless there is a reason for it, it just comes across as dumb. Of
> course no one said it's *forbidden*.
Like calling a rodent from the Andes a "Guinea pig"? Or a bird a
"titmouse"?
> > Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.
>
> Who said they needed?
Anyone who says that avoiding misnomers is expecting in naming
implicitly says so.
> Next thing you know, some french guy will coin the term 'phonophobe'
> to label people who love sound, and you'll be happy to carry it over
> to english because, after all, what's in a name.
Indeed, what is in a name? Consider, for example, homophobia,
hysteria, lunatic, ventriloquism, Chinese checkers, American Indians,
Gothic architecture, the Holy Roman Empire, ...
António Marques
> On May 10, 2:14 pm, António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 7:12 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > 4 - In a scientific matter such as this, the person would be expected
> > > > to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it or choosing a different
> > > > path altogether.
> ...
> > > Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.
>
> > Who said they needed?
>
> You did. Your #4 proposal is about avoiding misnomers.
1) ... in a quite specific situation. Not in general. Which pretty
much makes your/Nathan's objections inappropriate, to be kind.
2) 'Proposal'? Maybe you should read before snipping. I'm not
proposing anything.
> > Next thing you know, some french guy will coin the term 'phonophobe'
> > to label people who love sound, and you'll be happy to carry it over
> > to english because, after all, what's in a name.
>
> Don't know about Nathan; I'll be perfectly happy with it. It's all
> Greek to the French anyway.
You can talk like that because you know it wouldn't fly.
António Marques
> > It hasn't got to do with rigour. 'Quarks' and the like are just not
> > expected to be interpretable,
>
> What about "strange quarks", "up quarks", etc.? I'm not saying that
> "quark" itself should be interpretable, but surely "strange" would be.
> And yet, there's nothing particularly strange about strange quarks (at
> least, not distinctive from other quarks!).
Nor is any misleading information conveyed by the name - unless
nuclear physics attaches some special significance to any other kind
'strangeness', which I don't think it does - so I still don't see how
do they fit in.
> > so the misnomer issue doesn't arise at
> > all. And it's possible to call a plant with red flowers 'caerulea',
> > but unless there is a reason for it, it just comes across as dumb. Of
> > course no one said it's *forbidden*.
>
> Like calling a rodent from the Andes a "Guinea pig"? Or a bird a
> "titmouse"?
And guess what, they're 'piggies from India' here. Go figure. But did
you miss the 'there is a reason for it' part?
> > > Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.
>
> > Who said they needed?
>
> Anyone who says that avoiding misnomers is expecting in naming
> implicitly says so.
You're quite the reasoned fellow, Nathan. I didn't simply say avoiding
misnomers is expected in naming. I reserved that expectation for a
very specific situation; based on it, I assumed (1) had not been
fulfilled, and I still think so. Up until now, all objections have
emphatically missed the point.
> > Next thing you know, some french guy will coin the term 'phonophobe'
> > to label people who love sound, and you'll be happy to carry it over
> > to english because, after all, what's in a name.
>
> Indeed, what is in a name? Consider, for example,
I'll have to point out that most of these aren't technical at all, and
actual misnomers are few:
> homophobia,
A contraction which even makes a little sense of its own (as many
homophobe people avoid any intimacy with people of their own sex).
> hysteria,
Similar to oxygen; not expected to be corrected in languages in which
it doesn't actually evoke wombs, but probably should be in the ones in
which it does.
> lunatic,
Figurative and has no other possible meaning.
> ventriloquism,
Just what is misleading about it?
> Chinese checkers,
I understand the name was chosen on purpose.
> American Indians,
'Native American' (which isn't actually wrong) has been on the rise
for some time now.
> Gothic architecture,
The original sense of gothic is in even more restricted use.
> the Holy Roman Empire
Self-designation and taken quite seriously.
> , ...
I'm sorry, but this could go on and on. I'm talking apples, you're
talking oranges, and no, apples are not oranges. I'd appreciate that,
if you want to carry the conversation on, you do it in apples.
Are the two of you sure you know what I'm actually saying? Your
comments don't seem to point that way. I think you've had the urge to
type before thinking. Now, I'm not in the mood to go and repeat
everything, so reread it if you will.
Nathan Sanders
<d9cb5123-899c-41d4...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
António Marques <ent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 12:00 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > > It hasn't got to do with rigour. 'Quarks' and the like are just not
> > > expected to be interpretable,
> >
> > What about "strange quarks", "up quarks", etc.? I'm not saying that
> > "quark" itself should be interpretable, but surely "strange" would be.
> > And yet, there's nothing particularly strange about strange quarks (at
> > least, not distinctive from other quarks!).
>
> Nor is any misleading information conveyed by the name - unless
> nuclear physics attaches some special significance to any other kind
> 'strangeness', which I don't think it does - so I still don't see how
> do they fit in.
One would logically expect "strange" quarks to behave strangely. If
in fact they do not, then the name is a misleading description.
> > > so the misnomer issue doesn't arise at
> > > all. And it's possible to call a plant with red flowers 'caerulea',
> > > but unless there is a reason for it, it just comes across as dumb. Of
> > > course no one said it's *forbidden*.
> >
> > Like calling a rodent from the Andes a "Guinea pig"? Or a bird a
> > "titmouse"?
>
> And guess what, they're 'piggies from India' here. Go figure. But did
> you miss the 'there is a reason for it' part?
What counts as "a reason for it"? Or I guess more importantly, what
doesn't?
> > > > Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.
> >
> > > Who said they needed?
> >
> > Anyone who says that avoiding misnomers is expecting in naming
> > implicitly says so.
>
> You're quite the reasoned fellow, Nathan. I didn't simply say avoiding
> misnomers is expected in naming.
So what did you mean by "In a scientific matter such as this, the
person would be expected to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it
or choosing a different path altogether."?
> Up until now, all objections have
> emphatically missed the point.
If "all objections" have missed the point, then perhaps the point
wasn't made clearly enough. It is understandable why a writer would
place the blame for failed communication on the reader, but if every
single reader has misunderstood the writer, I think the writer needs
to consider alternative reasons for the communicative failure.
> I'll have to point out that most of these aren't technical at all, and
I'd hardly say that "oxygen" is (just) a technical term. It is most
certainly the ordinary term for the stuff! What else would you call
it in casual, non-technical speech?
> > ventriloquism,
>
> Just what is misleading about it?
Look up the Latin root "venter", and think carefully about what parts
of the body a ventriloquist uses (and doesn't use) when performing.
> > Chinese checkers,
>
> I understand the name was chosen on purpose.
So would purposefully choosing a misnomer be "a reason for it"?
> > American Indians,
>
> 'Native American' (which isn't actually wrong)
Well, they were natives of this land long before it was ever called
"America"!
> has been on the rise for some time now.
Irrelevant. "Indian" was and is still widely used, despite centuries
of knowing that it's a misnomer.
> > Gothic architecture,
>
> The original sense of gothic is in even more restricted use.
The original sense is presumably "of or having to do with the Goths".
Gothic architecture, from my limited knowledge of architecture, was
not created by the Goths (about 900 years and one country in the wrong
direction).
> > the Holy Roman Empire
>
> Self-designation and taken quite seriously.
So would self-designating oneself with a misnomer be "a reason for it"?
> Are the two of you sure you know what I'm actually saying? Your
Apparently not, if you don't think we have responded to what you think
you have said.
> Now, I'm not in the mood to go and repeat
> everything, so reread it if you will.
Repeating it wouldn't do any good, of course. Saying it with
different words might, however.
What, if anything, are you actually trying to say about misnomers like
oxygen? My claim is that they are utterly unremarkable, need no
explanation, and are not in any way something people will necessarily
feel any need to avoid. What's your claim?
mb
Yeah? So what are the many hundreds of similar stupid namings that I
see flying high above our heads, chopped liver? I just recited a
random list to myself, which you should do too and, boy, it would have
been scary if naming required any logic: We supposedly so finicky
Romance and Greek speakers are as bad as the Germanic or Chinese-
speaking. Why? Because once a name has been given, obviously the
analyzing and probing stops, a name becomes just a random tag for the
speakers.
António Marques
> In article
> <d9cb5123-899c-41d4-9f07-7b122d761...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
> António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 11, 12:00 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > It hasn't got to do with rigour. 'Quarks' and the like are just not
> > > > expected to be interpretable,
>
> > > What about "strange quarks", "up quarks", etc.? I'm not saying that
> > > "quark" itself should be interpretable, but surely "strange" would be.
> > > And yet, there's nothing particularly strange about strange quarks (at
> > > least, not distinctive from other quarks!).
>
> > Nor is any misleading information conveyed by the name - unless
> > nuclear physics attaches some special significance to any other kind
> > 'strangeness', which I don't think it does - so I still don't see how
> > do they fit in.
>
> One would logically expect "strange" quarks to behave strangely. If
> in fact they do not, then the name is a misleading description.
'Behave strangely' hardly has any meaning in this context. Next,
please. At least TRY.
> > > > so the misnomer issue doesn't arise at
> > > > all. And it's possible to call a plant with red flowers 'caerulea',
> > > > but unless there is a reason for it, it just comes across as dumb. Of
> > > > course no one said it's *forbidden*.
>
> > > Like calling a rodent from the Andes a "Guinea pig"? Or a bird a
> > > "titmouse"?
>
> > And guess what, they're 'piggies from India' here. Go figure. But did
> > you miss the 'there is a reason for it' part?
>
> What counts as "a reason for it"? Or I guess more importantly, what
> doesn't?
You guess correctly. In a scientific context, a long disspelled
misconception doesn't count as a good reason.
> > > > > Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.
>
> > > > Who said they needed?
>
> > > Anyone who says that avoiding misnomers is expecting in naming
> > > implicitly says so.
>
> > You're quite the reasoned fellow, Nathan. I didn't simply say avoiding
> > misnomers is expected in naming.
>
> So what did you mean by "In a scientific matter such as this, the
> person would be expected to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it
> or choosing a different path altogether."?
I'm somewhat troubled to see that 'In a scientific matter such as
this' and the several contextualising paragraphs preceding it are
apparently lost on you.
> > Up until now, all objections have
> > emphatically missed the point.
>
> If "all objections" have missed the point, then perhaps the point
> wasn't made clearly enough.
Wrong hypothesis. The point is quite literal and you have not engaged
it, but rather directed your objections at an unqualified general
statement which I did not make.
> It is understandable why a writer would
> place the blame for failed communication on the reader,
As if I didn't expect you'd say this. When the reader doesn't depart
from the writer's material when raising objections, the reader is to
blame. No matter how may do so.
> but if every
> single reader has misunderstood the writer,
'Every single reader' being you and mb? mb is just exhibiting typical
behaviour. Harlan pointed out that you're deliberately ignoring the
technicality on which it all hinges, because it's a technicality, when
in fact what is being discussed is precisely that technicality.
> I think the writer needs
> to consider alternative reasons for the communicative failure.
Clever argument, which of course I'd never considered before. You may
impress some 5th grader with it, but it isn't applicable here.
> > I'll have to point out that most of these aren't technical at all, and
>
> I'd hardly say that "oxygen" is (just) a technical term. It is most
> certainly the ordinary term for the stuff! What else would you call
> it in casual, non-technical speech?
DD UU HH !!! !!! !!! The first prediction from my algorithm is
precisely that the term wasn't probably coined in a scientifc context.
If you didn't even read that, that's my fault?
> > > ventriloquism,
>
> > Just what is misleading about it?
>
> Look up the Latin root "venter", and think carefully about what parts
> of the body a ventriloquist uses (and doesn't use) when performing.
I don't need to look up no latin root, 'ventre' is a perfectly normal
word in my language (there goes your assumption; did you really
imagine I didn't know what it meant? One of the things that makes
discussions monotonous is having the other said systematically indulge
in whishful thinking). There is no reason at all why a word that
designates making voice appear to come from somewhere else than it
really does should point to the exact source of sound.
> > > Chinese checkers,
>
> > I understand the name was chosen on purpose.
>
> So would purposefully choosing a misnomer be "a reason for it"?
Certainly.
> > > American Indians,
>
> > 'Native American' (which isn't actually wrong)
>
> Well, they were natives of this land long before it was ever called
> "America"!
But it is 'America' now.
> > has been on the rise for some time now.
>
> Irrelevant. "Indian" was and is still widely used, despite centuries
> of knowing that it's a misnomer.
Because the semantic connection to 'India' is too weak to matter.
> > > Gothic architecture,
>
> > The original sense of gothic is in even more restricted use.
>
> The original sense is presumably "of or having to do with the Goths".
> Gothic architecture, from my limited knowledge of architecture, was
> not created by the Goths (about 900 years and one country in the wrong
> direction).
And? I didn't say it had anything to do with the Goths, I said that
the original sense is all but unused. If memory serves, 'gothic
style' was coined as a natural follower of 'romanic', with a
derogatory sense (hence the 'reason'). Not because someone thought it
had developed under the Goths.
> > > the Holy Roman Empire
>
> > Self-designation and taken quite seriously.
>
> So would self-designating oneself with a misnomer be "a reason for it"?
Certainly, unless someone else were offended.
> > Are the two of you sure you know what I'm actually saying? Your
>
> Apparently not, if you don't think we have responded to what you think
> you have said.
I don't need to 'think' much, It's up there (http://groups.google.com/
group/sci.lang/msg/55dc0ff29c97e411?dmode=source) in succint enough
terms, points 1-4 and the 5th is expressed in the coda. It's not a
recipe for calquing words, it's a number of points which should arise
in a very specific context. It isn't put forward as inevitable - it
states its requisites. As its outcome is not what came about with the
hebrew version of oxygen, I point out that some of the prerequisites
probably wasn't met. You dispute (4), but for all this talking haven't
put forward a counterexample which respects 1, 2 and 5. You might have
tried to show 5 to be unfalsifiable; but I've given you above an
example of something which doesn't count as a 5. So if you have
documentary evidence of a case meeting 1, 2 and 5, with an outcome
different from 4, then you have a case.
(You'll have a case of a coinage which I'll label as unfortunate and
sloppy; I never said it couldn't happen. You'll just have me having to
admit that person X, even if X is dear to me, has acted poorly.)
In other news, today I'm introducing 'melanophile' as a new
designation for white supremacists.
António Marques
> On May 10, 8:21 pm, António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 10:24 pm, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 2:14 pm, António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 10, 7:12 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > 4 - In a scientific matter such as this, the person would be expected
> > > > > > to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it or choosing a different
> > > > > > path altogether.
> > > ...
> > > > > Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.
>
> > > > Who said they needed?
>
> > > You did. Your #4 proposal is about avoiding misnomers.
>
> > 1) ... in a quite specific situation. Not in general. Which pretty
> > much makes your/Nathan's objections inappropriate, to be kind.
>
> > 2) 'Proposal'? Maybe you should read before snipping. I'm not
> > proposing anything.
>
> > > > Next thing you know, some french guy will coin the term 'phonophobe'
> > > > to label people who love sound, and you'll be happy to carry it over
> > > > to english because, after all, what's in a name.
>
> > > Don't know about Nathan; I'll be perfectly happy with it. It's all
> > > Greek to the French anyway.
>
> > You can talk like that because you know it wouldn't fly.
>
> Yeah? So what are the many hundreds of similar stupid namings that I
> see flying high above our heads, chopped liver?
Any of them scientific, coined by scientists aware of their misleading
nature, and with no separate reason for it? ('Melanophile' has a nice
reason behind it, annoying the lot.)
Nathan Sanders
<d287893d-f2fe-444e...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
António Marques <ent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 5:52 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > What counts as "a reason for it"? Or I guess more importantly, what
> > doesn't?
>
> You guess correctly. In a scientific context, a long disspelled
> misconception doesn't count as a good reason.
Why not? Why isn't respecting traditional names a "good reason"?
That's why the planets in our solar system are still named after
ancient gods. They weren't named after them just for fun---those
names are a holdover from naming practices stemming from what is now
"a long disspelled misconception".
I still see no reason why you should expect scientists to be subject
to different/stricter linguistic standards than anyone else. Names
are names, not descriptions. Scientists use definitions for
descriptions.
> > So what did you mean by "In a scientific matter such as this, the
> > person would be expected to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it
> > or choosing a different path altogether."?
>
> I'm somewhat troubled to see that 'In a scientific matter such as
> this' and the several contextualising paragraphs preceding it are
> apparently lost on you.
And yet, in a scientific context, there are plenty of examples of
where misnomers have in fact not been avoided, and are even embraced.
This is why I don't see why you think misnomer avoidance is such a
strong factor.
> > > I'll have to point out that most of these aren't technical at all, and
> >
> > I'd hardly say that "oxygen" is (just) a technical term. It is most
> > certainly the ordinary term for the stuff! What else would you call
> > it in casual, non-technical speech?
>
> DD UU HH !!! !!! !!! The first prediction from my algorithm is
> precisely that the term wasn't probably coined in a scientifc context.
I highly doubt the average man on the street was responsible for
calquing "oxygen", since they would be unlikely to even know what the
Greek roots mean. Most likely, it was a scientist who decided to
respect the traditional naming scheme. Big yawn, because that happens
all the time in science.
> If you didn't even read that, that's my fault?
>
> > > > ventriloquism,
> >
> > > Just what is misleading about it?
> >
> > Look up the Latin root "venter", and think carefully about what parts
> > of the body a ventriloquist uses (and doesn't use) when performing.
>
> I don't need to look up no latin root, 'ventre' is a perfectly normal
> word in my language (there goes your assumption; did you really
> imagine I didn't know what it meant? One of the things that makes
> discussions monotonous is having the other said systematically indulge
> in whishful thinking). There is no reason at all why a word that
> designates making voice appear to come from somewhere else than it
> really does should point to the exact source of sound.
But it *does* point to an exact source (the belly). That source
happens to be wrong, which is the point here. "Ventriloquism" is a
misnomer.
> > > > Chinese checkers,
> >
> > > I understand the name was chosen on purpose.
> >
> > So would purposefully choosing a misnomer be "a reason for it"?
>
> Certainly.
Why can't scientists purposefully choose a misnomer, then?
Or is this your "get out of jail free" card, as soon as someone finds
a scientific misnomer to present to you as a counterexample to your
"predictions", you can just say "well, he did it on purpose, so I'm
right anyway". How very convenient.
> > > > American Indians,
> >
> > > 'Native American' (which isn't actually wrong)
> >
> > Well, they were natives of this land long before it was ever called
> > "America"!
>
> But it is 'America' now.
When means I'm a Native American. Or not. Depending on who you ask.
> > > has been on the rise for some time now.
> >
> > Irrelevant. "Indian" was and is still widely used, despite centuries
> > of knowing that it's a misnomer.
>
> Because the semantic connection to 'India' is too weak to matter.
Ah, another way to weasel out of misnomers: a weak semantic
connection. "The semantic connection is weak, so my predictions are
still correct."
If you make your "predictions" broad enough, you can predict whatever
you want and never be wrong. That's how astrologers and palm readers
make their money.
Pierre Jelenc
>
> Any of them scientific, coined by scientists aware of their misleading
> nature, and with no separate reason for it? ('Melanophile' has a nice
> reason behind it, annoying the lot.)
In any case, "oxygen" and the like are *not* misnomers! They do not
describe the situation fully, but the fact is that most acids contain
oxygen. "Most" as in "millions to one." So what if there are 8 acids
that do not, they are vastly outnumbered by those that do.
Combine something with enough oxygen, and you will almost always get an
acid. Often a relatively weak one, but an acid nonetheless.
mb
Good number of them. Also consider that "scientists", as applied to
experimental sciences, has always meant people who, even in the full
of Renaissance, were supremely ignorant of Greek and bad at Latin
(which I suspect was the reason in the first place for their tending
to the experimental sciences). They were far from being as
catastrophic as today's academics though, many linguists included. As
an example, many thousands of "Greek" nonsense compounds had to be
reworded in Greek because they still don't make sense. Your question
about the coiners being aware of it or not is not relevant in language
and surprises me coming from you; the receiving end must be aware
(otherwise language is an instrument for otherwise impenetrable
soliloquy by a single person, as defined by Franzli). A good portion,
perhaps the majority of these words, also go against the intended
meaning. Just look at the few examples in Sanders' post.
mb
...
> I highly doubt the average man on the street was responsible for
> calquing "oxygen", since they would be unlikely to even know what the
> Greek roots mean. Most likely, it was a scientist who decided to
> respect the traditional naming scheme.
The daddy of chemistry himself.
António Marques
> António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 11, 5:52 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > > What counts as "a reason for it"? Or I guess more importantly, what
> > > doesn't?
>
> > You guess correctly. In a scientific context, a long disspelled
> > misconception doesn't count as a good reason.
>
> Why not? Why isn't respecting traditional names a "good reason"?
Who said it isn't? Here we're talking about a calque: a word which is
mostly opaque to its users - western europeans - was disassembled into
its constituents, we're told, and rebuilt from their translations into
something the average hebrew speaker can analyse. If the intent were
to respect the traditional name, it would have been logical to just
keep it, no translation.
> That's why the planets in our solar system are still named after
> ancient gods. They weren't named after them just for fun---those
> names are a holdover from naming practices stemming from what is now
> "a long disspelled misconception".
Those names obey (most of them, anyway) clear established rules. Your
point is?
> I still see no reason why you should expect scientists to be subject
> to different/stricter linguistic standards than anyone else. Names
> are names, not descriptions. Scientists use definitions for
> descriptions.
Chemical nomenclature strives for meaningful names.
> > > So what did you mean by "In a scientific matter such as this, the
> > > person would be expected to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it
> > > or choosing a different path altogether."?
>
> > I'm somewhat troubled to see that 'In a scientific matter such as
> > this' and the several contextualising paragraphs preceding it are
> > apparently lost on you.
>
> And yet, in a scientific context, there are plenty of examples of
> where misnomers have in fact not been avoided, and are even embraced.
But where are they, in such plentiful embraced abundance? (I didn't
say there weren't, btw. I've said I reserve the right to call them
unfortunate given some conditions.)
> This is why I don't see why you think misnomer avoidance is such a
> strong factor.
A factor in *what*? I said it was called for in some circumstances.
> > > > I'll have to point out that most of these aren't technical at all, and
>
> > > I'd hardly say that "oxygen" is (just) a technical term. It is most
> > > certainly the ordinary term for the stuff! What else would you call
> > > it in casual, non-technical speech?
>
> > DD UU HH !!! !!! !!! The first prediction from my algorithm is
> > precisely that the term wasn't probably coined in a scientifc context.
>
> I highly doubt the average man on the street was responsible for
> calquing "oxygen", since they would be unlikely to even know what the
> Greek roots mean. Most likely, it was a scientist who decided to
> respect the traditional naming scheme.
Why can't it have been one of the early hebrew enthusiasts which
didn't care much about chemistry at all but decided to build some
needed words? Remember, people were having a hard time breathing
before.
> Big yawn, because that happens
> all the time in science.
All the time, no less? Look, if you're going to yawn, maybe you should
go to bed instead. No one drafted you for some crusade, you know.
> > If you didn't even read that, that's my fault?
>
> > > > > ventriloquism,
>
> > > > Just what is misleading about it?
>
> > > Look up the Latin root "venter", and think carefully about what parts
> > > of the body a ventriloquist uses (and doesn't use) when performing.
>
> > I don't need to look up no latin root, 'ventre' is a perfectly normal
> > word in my language (there goes your assumption; did you really
> > imagine I didn't know what it meant? One of the things that makes
> > discussions monotonous is having the other said systematically indulge
> > in whishful thinking). There is no reason at all why a word that
> > designates making voice appear to come from somewhere else than it
> > really does should point to the exact source of sound.
>
> But it *does* point to an exact source (the belly). That source
> happens to be wrong, which is the point here. "Ventriloquism" is a
> misnomer.
It *does* point to a source, its whole point is that it doesn't point
to the correct source - which is the same for ventriloquists and non-
ventriloquists, so it would be quite pointless to point to the correct
source, wouldn't it?
Saying 'ventriloquism' is a misnomer reminds me of the guy who, having
seen a parody of a senate debate, cries out 'but that's a fake!'.
> > > > > Chinese checkers,
>
> > > > I understand the name was chosen on purpose.
>
> > > So would purposefully choosing a misnomer be "a reason for it"?
>
> > Certainly.
>
> Why can't scientists purposefully choose a misnomer, then?
Of course they can. And, depending on circumstance, the merit of the
purpose may vary.
> Or is this your "get out of jail free" card, as soon as someone finds
> a scientific misnomer to present to you as a counterexample to your
> "predictions", you can just say "well, he did it on purpose, so I'm
> right anyway". How very convenient.
I'd appreciate it if you kept the strawmen where they belong. (Or is
it that 'Chinese checkers' is your carefully crafted scientific
misnomer?)
> > > > > American Indians,
>
> > > > 'Native American' (which isn't actually wrong)
>
> > > Well, they were natives of this land long before it was ever called
> > > "America"!
>
> > But it is 'America' now.
>
> When means I'm a Native American. Or not. Depending on who you ask.
Whether you are or are not one does not bear on the question of
whether *they* are, which is the point here.
> > > > has been on the rise for some time now.
>
> > > Irrelevant. "Indian" was and is still widely used, despite centuries
> > > of knowing that it's a misnomer.
>
> > Because the semantic connection to 'India' is too weak to matter.
>
> Ah, another way to weasel out of misnomers: a weak semantic
> connection. "The semantic connection is weak, so my predictions are
> still correct."
Semantics is what this is about. If you can't engage it, no one is
forcing you to. (But maybe you think of India when you hear about
american indians? That's another matter. Do you or do you not? Because
the crux of the matter here is that if you ask the average german what
stuff are acids made of, there's a chance the answer will be 'oxygen'
- whereas if you ask where do american indians come from, I seriously
doubt anyone will answer 'India'.)
> If you make your "predictions" broad enough, you can predict whatever
> you want and never be wrong. That's how astrologers and palm readers
> make their money.
I stated the conditions at the outset. If you can't come up with a
counterexample that meets them, that's hardly my fault, and you don't
look better by pretending I've made them unfalsifiable.
Do you have a point to make? If you do, then please go ahead, because
it's evaded me so far. 'Names are just labels and don't need to be
accurate'? Valid in linguistic terms. Never said otherwise. Been
there, done that. 'You can call things whatever you want and everybody
will be happy'? Wrong at times. And in case you object that there
isn't much substance to this discussion, well, I'm not the one
shooting in all directions.
António Marques
> António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > Any of them scientific, coined by scientists aware of their misleading
> > nature, and with no separate reason for it? ('Melanophile' has a nice
> > reason behind it, annoying the lot.)
>
> In any case, "oxygen" and the like are *not* misnomers! They do not
> describe the situation fully, but the fact is that most acids contain
> oxygen.
Substitute 'chemical compound' for acid, no? The most satisfying
definition of acid that people have come up with is 'proton donor'.
Nothing about oxygen there.
> "Most" as in "millions to one."
> So what if there are 8 acids
> that do not, they are vastly outnumbered by those that do.
Where's the oxygen in HCl, possibly one of the acids best known as
such?
> Combine something with enough oxygen, and you will almost always get an
> acid. Often a relatively weak one, but an acid nonetheless.
Do you mean oxidating cations? Depends on the 'something', doesn't it?
'Hydrogen' is reasonable - water does have hydrogen, as in always.
But I didn't complain about 'oxygen'. I said the hebrew word recently
coined should have strived for better - unlike 'oxygen', it has a
meaning to hebrew speakers.
António Marques
No one is talking about 'oxygen'. The discussion is about the hebrew
word.
António Marques
> > > Yeah? So what are the many hundreds of similar stupid namings that I
> > > see flying high above our heads, chopped liver?
>
> > Any of them scientific, coined by scientists aware of their misleading
> > nature, and with no separate reason for it? ('Melanophile' has a nice
> > reason behind it, annoying the lot.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> Good number of them.
Well, then, where are they? Is 'chinese checkers' supposed to be the
one?
> Also consider that "scientists", as applied to
> experimental sciences, has always meant people who, even in the full
> of Renaissance, were supremely ignorant of Greek and bad at Latin
> (which I suspect was the reason in the first place for their tending
> to the experimental sciences).
:D Certainly - but the discussion is about some hebrew speaker who
knew what the elements meant in greek and in hebrew.
> They were far from being as
> catastrophic as today's academics though, many linguists included. As
> an example, many thousands of "Greek" nonsense compounds had to be
> reworded in Greek because they still don't make sense.>
But WHY, since you consider that they are only labels and their
content is irrelevant? You should be happy to use them as they are, or
not?
> Your question
> about the coiners being aware of it or not is not relevant in language
> and surprises me coming from you;
And me; what question?
> the receiving end must be aware
> (otherwise language is an instrument for otherwise impenetrable
> soliloquy by a single person, as defined by Franzli). A good portion,
> perhaps the majority of these words, also go against the intended
> meaning. Just look at the few examples in Sanders' post.
I went through all of them. Not one is scientific, coined by a
scientist aware of its misleading nature, and with no separate reason
for keeping the misnonymity.
Lavoisier attached a great deal of importance to naming - his war
against phlogiston was fought a great deal in namingland (and rightly
so; it was a case of paradigm change which needed just that kind of
front) - and created 'oxygen' quite carefully with descriptiveness in
mind. The fact that, after all, 'oxygen' isn't 'the essence of acid'
is of minor importance in that regard.
mb
...
> Who said it isn't? Here we're talking about a calque: a word which is
> mostly opaque to its users - western europeans - was disassembled into
> its constituents, we're told, and rebuilt from their translations into
> something the average hebrew speaker can analyse. If the intent were
> to respect the traditional name, it would have been logical to just
> keep it, no translation.
And that's exactly what was done: The "new speaker" of the re-invented-
Hebrew was (then) almost uniformly a mother-tongue speaker of a German
dialect commonly called Yiddish, literate and fairly-to-thoroughly
familiar with German, which also happened to be the chief scientific
language for chemistry. A calque from Sauerstoff was guaranteed
immediate recognition,no question about that. why should anyone have
bothered with some Al-Autistiqui style soul-searching about
hypothetical "misnomers" as if they mattered even a bit?
Richard Wordingham
news:nsanders-32DFB9...@cpc3-rdng14-0-0-cust319.winn.cable.ntl.com...
> What about "strange quarks", "up quarks", etc.? I'm not saying that
> "quark" itself should be interpretable, but surely "strange" would be.
> And yet, there's nothing particularly strange about strange quarks (at
> least, not distinctive from other quarks!).
On the contrary, particles containing strange quarks decay strangely slowly.
I kid you not.
Richard.
Nathan Sanders
"Richard Wordingham" <jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Do those containing charm quarks decay charmingly?
Pierre Jelenc
> On May 11, 6:39 pm, r...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
> >
> > In any case, "oxygen" and the like are *not* misnomers! They do not
> > describe the situation fully, but the fact is that most acids contain
> > oxygen.
>
> Substitute 'chemical compound' for acid, no? The most satisfying
> definition of acid that people have come up with is 'proton donor'.
> Nothing about oxygen there.
Most acids contain oxygen. The overwhelming majority of acids contain
oxygen. Nothing but a handful of acids do not contain oxygen.
> Where's the oxygen in HCl, possibly one of the acids best known as
> such?
So what? As I said, there are about 8 acids that do not contain oxygen.
Millions of others do and the oxygen is integral to their acidity via the
O-H bond.
> > Combine something with enough oxygen, and you will almost always get an
> > acid. Often a relatively weak one, but an acid nonetheless.
>
> Do you mean oxidating cations? Depends on the 'something', doesn't it?
No. I mean take almost any chemical compound and combine it ("burn it")
with enough oxygen, then dissolve it in water, and you have an acid.
Pretty simple. Only metals in groups 1 and 2, and the noble gases do not
produce acids with oxygen. But methane, iron, tin, bromine, whatever do.
> 'Hydrogen' is reasonable - water does have hydrogen, as in always.
> But I didn't complain about 'oxygen'. I said the hebrew word recently
> coined should have strived for better - unlike 'oxygen', it has a
> meaning to hebrew speakers.
Again, take almost any chemical and burn it in oxygen and you'll get an
acid. Oxygen mostly makes acids. Not all acids, and not with absolutely
every element, but mostly. Add the historical tradition, and it's not a
bad choice at all.
Joachim Pense
>
> Semantics is what this is about. If you can't engage it, no one is
> forcing you to. (But maybe you think of India when you hear about
> american indians? That's another matter. Do you or do you not? Because
> the crux of the matter here is that if you ask the average german what
> stuff are acids made of, there's a chance the answer will be 'oxygen'
The German calque is "Sauerstoff", not "Säurenstoff". (sour stuff, not acid
stuff). So the first association is that it should have a sour taste. Maybe
some think that it does and that we don't perceive it because it is mixed
with other substances like Nitrogen. But that's my speculation.
But anyway, I think you're right about the average German's theory on acids,
even though I have no evidence.
> - whereas if you ask where do american indians come from, I seriously
> doubt anyone will answer 'India'.)
That's different. We discern "Inder" (Indian Indians) from "Indianer"
(American Indians). "Indianer" doesn't lead to any associations with India.
By the way - "Indianer" is primarily used for _North_ American Indians. The
South American Indians are called "Indios" in German.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
>
>> They were far from being as
>> catastrophic as today's academics though, many linguists included. As
>> an example, many thousands of "Greek" nonsense compounds had to be
>> reworded in Greek because they still don't make sense.>
>
> But WHY, since you consider that they are only labels and their
> content is irrelevant? You should be happy to use them as they are, or
> not?
>
It is not the content but the language that was poor and was corrected by
rewording.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
>
>> 'Hydrogen' is reasonable - water does have hydrogen, as in always.
>> But I didn't complain about 'oxygen'. I said the hebrew word recently
>> coined should have strived for better - unlike 'oxygen', it has a
>> meaning to hebrew speakers.
>
> Again, take almost any chemical and burn it in oxygen and you'll get an
> acid. Oxygen mostly makes acids. Not all acids, and not with absolutely
> every element, but mostly. Add the historical tradition, and it's not a
> bad choice at all.
>
I agree to that reasoning.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
>
> Most acids contain oxygen. The overwhelming majority of acids contain
> oxygen. Nothing but a handful of acids do not contain oxygen.
>
But still it is not the oxygen that makes them acids.
Joachim
Craoi...@gmail.com
In my native language, oxygen is called happi, which is related to
hapan = sour and happo = acid. The etymological connection with
"happo" is obvious when you think of it, but the average Finn
certainly has little or no associations with acid or sour when hearing
the word happi - "happi" is the gas you breathe in order to survive,
and that's it.
Yusuf B Gursey
> António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On May 11, 6:39 pm, r...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
>
> > > In any case, "oxygen" and the like are *not* misnomers! They do not
> > > describe the situation fully, but the fact is that most acids contain
> > > oxygen.
>
> > Substitute 'chemical compound' for acid, no? The most satisfying
> > definition of acid that people have come up with is 'proton donor'.
> > Nothing about oxygen there.
>
> Most acids contain oxygen. The overwhelming majority of acids contain
> oxygen. Nothing but a handful of acids do not contain oxygen.
>
> > Where's the oxygen in HCl, possibly one of the acids best known as
> > such?
>
> So what? As I said, there are about 8 acids that do not contain oxygen.
> Millions of others do and the oxygen is integral to their acidity via the
> O-H bond.
the OH radical produces bases, not acids.
mb
> On May 12, 5:04 am, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And that's exactly what was done: The "new speaker" of the re-invented-
> > Hebrew was (then) almost uniformly a mother-tongue speaker of a German
> > dialect commonly called Yiddish, literate and fairly-to-thoroughly
> > familiar with German, which also happened to be the chief scientific
> > language for chemistry. A calque from Sauerstoff was guaranteed
> > immediate recognition,no question about that. why should anyone have
> > bothered with some Al-Autistiqui style soul-searching about
> > hypothetical "misnomers" as if they mattered even a bit?
>
> In my native language, oxygen is called happi, which is related to
> hapan = sour and happo = acid. The etymological connection with
> "happo" is obvious when you think of it, but the average Finn
> certainly has little or no associations with acid or sour when hearing
> the word happi - "happi" is the gas you breathe in order to survive,
> and that's it.
Of course.
Just as it is just a tag with Greeks (who by the way had to re-calque
or back-calque from the ineptly constructed "oxygen" to "oxygónos",
gen- not being the wrong degree of umlaut [gon- generater, gen-
generatee]). They just breathe it, and Greek chemists do not feel a
tart taste in their mouth everytime they pronounce it. According to
the "misnomer" theory they should be jumping every time, or the word
should have been recoined as something totally different but
chemically kosher.
mb
Well said. It is a question of form, and form retains its irritating
power intact as long as it does not fit the rules. Content in a tag is
totally irrelevant but execrable grammar will necessarily call
attention to itself. If I used "oxygénos" in Greek everyone would be
laughing his ass off. It must be either "oxygónos", acid-producing
(which is in use), or "oxygenês", born from acid . The second is not
used because the calque goes the other way around, but it would not
have attracted attention.
Richard Herring
<e8cd342e-46a1-4c21...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> writes
>On May 12, 1:25 am, r...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
>> António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On May 11, 6:39 pm, r...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
>>
>> > > In any case, "oxygen" and the like are *not* misnomers! They do not
>> > > describe the situation fully, but the fact is that most acids contain
>> > > oxygen.
>>
>> > Substitute 'chemical compound' for acid, no? The most satisfying
>> > definition of acid that people have come up with is 'proton donor'.
>> > Nothing about oxygen there.
>>
>> Most acids contain oxygen. The overwhelming majority of acids contain
>> oxygen. Nothing but a handful of acids do not contain oxygen.
>>
>> > Where's the oxygen in HCl, possibly one of the acids best known as
>> > such?
>>
>> So what? As I said, there are about 8 acids that do not contain oxygen.
>> Millions of others do and the oxygen is integral to their acidity via the
>> O-H bond.
>
>the OH radical produces bases, not acids.
The OH- radical and the O-H bond are different things.
--
Richard Herring
Yusuf B Gursey
> In message
> <e8cd342e-46a1-4c21-9ec4-38e633a31...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
the OH radical is just hydrogen bonded to oxygen.
> --
> Richard Herring
Pierre Jelenc
> On May 12, 1:25 am, r...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
> >
> > So what? As I said, there are about 8 acids that do not contain oxygen.
> > Millions of others do and the oxygen is integral to their acidity via the
> > O-H bond.
>
> the OH radical produces bases, not acids.
I said nothing about the OH radical, I said the O-H bond.
In water solutions (which is where classic acids are defined; Lewis acids
are well beyond our scope here) acidity is the concentration of protons,
or H+ ions.
Hydrogen, as most know, is a covalent molecule. Most hydrogen compounds
are also covalent and do not ionize to protons in water. Think methane,
ammonia.
To have an acid, you need to associate the hydrogen to some highly
electronegative atom(s) that will pull its electron away and form a stable
anion-proton pair.
Some elements are electronegative enough to pull it off --so to speak-- by
themselves: HCl <=> H+ Cl- for instance.
These atoms are monovalent, however, and the number of such compounds is
thus very limited.
Oxygen, however, is divalent and it can combine easily with many others to
form complex compounds that *are* acidic:
NH3 ammonia: not acidic
O=N-O-H <=> O=NO- H+ nitrous acid
O O
N-O-H <= N-O- H+ nitric acid
O O
H-Cl <=> H+ Cl- hydrochloric acid
HClO <=> Cl-O- H+ hypochlorous acid
HClO3 <=> O2Cl-O- H+ chloric acid
HClO4 <=> O3Cl-O- H+ perchloric acid
See how in all these oxyacids it is the oxygen in an O-H bond that pulls
away the electron from the hydrogen (and there are other effects, such as
stabilization by the distant oxygens via resonance, but still the main
negative charge will reside on the oxygen.)
Thus, oxygen does not generate *all* acids, but it does generate *most*
acids.
Yusuf B Gursey
Joe Fineman
> Thus, oxygen does not generate *all* acids, but it does generate
> *most* acids.
In particular, if you want an *organic* acid, you have to get a
hydrogen ion loose from the carbon somehow, and the usual way is to
stick it out on a limb using the carboxyl radical (-COOH). I believe
the way it works is that the first O sucks some of the electron cloud
away from the C, which in turn sucks some away from the second O,
which leaves the H ion (proton) thinly coated & somewhat detachable.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: If you can't pay it back, pay it forward. :||
Richard Herring
<5fe3d681-e4e9-4b4f...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>On May 13, 12:33 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> In message
>> <e8cd342e-46a1-4c21-9ec4-38e633a31...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 12, 1:25 am, r...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
>> >> António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> > On May 11, 6:39 pm, r...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
>>
>> >> > > In any case, "oxygen" and the like are *not* misnomers! They do not
>> >> > > describe the situation fully, but the fact is that most acids contain
>> >> > > oxygen.
>>
>> >> > Substitute 'chemical compound' for acid, no? The most satisfying
>> >> > definition of acid that people have come up with is 'proton donor'.
>> >> > Nothing about oxygen there.
>>
>> >> Most acids contain oxygen. The overwhelming majority of acids contain
>> >> oxygen. Nothing but a handful of acids do not contain oxygen.
>>
>> >> > Where's the oxygen in HCl, possibly one of the acids best known as
>> >> > such?
>>
>> >> So what? As I said, there are about 8 acids that do not contain oxygen.
>> >> Millions of others do and the oxygen is integral to their acidity via the
>> >> O-H bond.
>>
>> >the OH radical produces bases, not acids.
>>
>> The OH- radical and the O-H bond are different things.
>>
>
>the OH radical is just hydrogen bonded to oxygen.
Not "just". Note that I wrote OH-, not OH. The radical carries a
negative charge, which makes it a proton acceptor and hence a base. But
if the OH- is bonded to some R+ to make ROH, you have the possibility of
either breaking the R-O bond yielding R+ and OH- or the O-H bond,
yielding RO- and H+. In the latter case, it's a proton donor and hence
an acid.
--
Richard Herring
Craoi...@gmail.com
> In message
Then it is an ion, not a radical.
Richard Herring
<4a3f0093-5c1f-425b...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Craoi...@gmail.com writes
>On May 14, 12:36 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> In message
>> <5fe3d681-e4e9-4b4f-9326-788255577...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 13, 12:33 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <e8cd342e-46a1-4c21-9ec4-38e633a31...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> writes
>>
>> >> >On May 12, 1:25 am, r...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
>> >> >> António Marques <ento...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> >> > On May 11, 6:39 pm, r...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > In any case, "oxygen" and the like are *not* misnomers! They do not
>> >> >> > > describe the situation fully, but the fact is that most
>> >> >> > > oxygen.
>>
>> >> >> > Substitute 'chemical compound' for acid, no? The most satisfying
>> >> >> > definition of acid that people have come up with is 'proton donor'.
>> >> >> > Nothing about oxygen there.
>>
>> >> >> Most acids contain oxygen. The overwhelming majority of acids contain
>> >> >> oxygen. Nothing but a handful of acids do not contain oxygen.
>>
>> >> >> > Where's the oxygen in HCl, possibly one of the acids best known as
>> >> >> > such?
>>
>> >> >> So what? As I said, there are about 8 acids that do not contain oxygen.
>> >> >> Millions of others do and the oxygen is integral to their
>> >> >>acidity via the
>> >> >> O-H bond.
>>
>> >> >the OH radical produces bases, not acids.
>>
>> >> The OH- radical and the O-H bond are different things.
>>
>> >the OH radical is just hydrogen bonded to oxygen.
>>
>> Not "just". Note that I wrote OH-, not OH. The radical carries a
>> negative charge,
>
>Then it is an ion, not a radical.
(consults ancient chemistry text) True. But it's the hydroxyl ion that's
basic, not the radical.
--
Richard Herring
Richard Wordingham
> Do those containing charm quarks decay charmingly?
I can't verify the etymology, but I've been told that the name arises from
the sarcastic exclamation, 'That's charming!'. The clue to the clark's
existence was the anomalous decay of neutral kaons, but I can't find
anything more useful. Charmed particles do seem to lead charmed lives, but
I've seen no evidence that that led to the name.
I've also found another explanation: "This flavour of quark was predicted by
American physicist Sheldon Glashow, who called it charmed because he was so
charmed with the solution it supplied to his theoretical subnuclear puzzle."
Richard.
John Atkinson
> António Marques <ent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>>
>> DD UU HH !!! !!! !!! The first prediction from my algorithm is
>> precisely that the term wasn't probably coined in a scientifc
>> context.
>
> calquing "oxygen", since they would be unlikely to even know what the
> Greek roots mean. Most likely, it was a scientist who decided to
> all the time in science.
Well, the ones who calqued it into Hebrew were almost certainly German
Jews, so they calqued it from "Sauerstoff", not directly from "oxygen".
And "Sauerstoff" is a pretty transparent compound word, so I bet they
did know what its components meant, whether or not they were scientists
(though, like Nathan, I think it very likely that they were).
John.
Daniel al-Autistiqui
Jelenc) wrote:
>Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> writes:
>> Pierre Jelenc wrote:
>> > António Marques <m....@sapo.pt> writes:
>> >> In this particular case, if it's as you describe it, I happen to think
>> >> you're right. When a designation has been known to be misnomer for an
>> >> extended period of time, it doesn't seem justified to calque it -
>> >> especially since the people involved should know what they were doing.
>> >
>> > It would be a misnomer if it were analysed every time it is used, but as a
>> > chemist I can assure you that no chemist ever thinks of "oxygen" as "acid
>> > maker". Ever. And that goes for Sauerstoff, and syre, and the like.
>> >
So, you're saying that the people who calqued "oxygen" into German,
Hebrew, etc., were not chemists? In order to calque a term, you must
necessarily have the word mentally registered in a certain way.
If you know that the Greek roots of "oxygen" mean literally "acid
maker" but you habitually store the word in your mind as just the
arbitrary name of the substance, then you merely know the etymology of
"oxygen".
>> > Must all Philips be lovers of horses?
>>
>> Ah. But Philo-hippos (or whatever) wasn't translated into French as
>> "Aimecheval" or Spanish as "Amacaballos" or English as "Horselover".
>> It's a non-analogy for calquing "oxygen" into Hebrew that way.
>
>How about potash? Potassium hydroxide. Do you think there's one chemist in
>the entire English-speaking world who thinks "ah, yes, that stuff we used
>to make from pot ashes"? It's just its name, it's not analysed.
>
If it's not analyzed, then I hope that no "translated" form of this
has emerged, in which another language's words for "pot" and "ashes"
were brought together. Etymology is irrelevant (as Nathan has pointed
out). (Incidentally, I used to think the word was pronounced
/'poU,t&S/ -- which shows that I had no idea of its connection with
either "pot" or "ash", although I knew that it was related to
"potassium".)
BTW, I'm sorry it took so long for me to return to this discussion.
For a few weeks there was a problem with the payment of my NetZero
account, and among the things I was unable to do was connect to my
news server. I'm happy to be able to post to Usenet again.
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
mb
...
> If you know that the Greek roots of "oxygen" mean literally "acid
> maker"
They certainly don't. Where do you get this nonsense?
Daniel al-Autistiqui
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
>Why not? Why isn't respecting traditional names a "good reason"?
>That's why the planets in our solar system are still named after
>ancient gods. They weren't named after them just for fun---those
>names are a holdover from naming practices stemming from what is now
>"a long disspelled misconception".
>
Hebrew formed its word for "oxygen" by means of calquing (taking the
roots of the word for "oxygen" in some European language, and
translating them). That, IMO, is not "respecting traditional names"
(to do that you'd have to just borrow the European word as is and
transliterate it into Hebrew letters). Would you agree with me that
in modern English, "oxygen" is only /A/ + /k/ + /s/ + /@/ + /dZ/ + /@/
+ /n/ and not "acid" + "producer"? If so, then I suppose you'd have
to say that it can't be calqued, as it is nothing but an arbitrary
stretch of sound. To me, the coinage of a word like the Hebrew
/xam'can/ seems just as silly as that favorite hypothetical example of
mine you may recall: using "selten" in German to describe meat that is
lightly cooked -- on the model of English "rare", of course.
>I still see no reason why you should expect scientists to be subject
>to different/stricter linguistic standards than anyone else. Names
>are names, not descriptions. Scientists use definitions for
>descriptions.
>
Then **why** have the names of so many things been changed for the
very reason that the old names were misleading? Do you think that
these names should in fact never have been changed? And **why** have
there apparently been so many people who've complained that a certain
name is a "misnomer"? Isn't "misnomer" sort of a pejorative term
anyway? Perhaps when someone manages to use a name but admits that
the name doesn't make sense, they should use a term that is more
neutral in connotation and call it, say, an "idiomatic name" (I
haven't been able to come up with anything better than that).
Daniel al-Autistiqui
<john...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Well, the ones who calqued it into Hebrew were almost certainly German
>Jews, so they calqued it from "Sauerstoff", not directly from "oxygen".
>And "Sauerstoff" is a pretty transparent compound word, so I bet they
>did know what its components meant, whether or not they were scientists
>(though, like Nathan, I think it very likely that they were).
I'm not convinced that the average speaker of German would perceive
"Sauerstoff" as a compound word. Although many German speakers might
be able to guess, when they think about it, that it might have some
*etymological* connection with "sauer" and/or "Stoff", it seems that
most would habitually store it in their minds as just the arbitrary
name of the substance -- a single, indivisible morpheme.
Daniel al-Autistiqui
wrote:
I don't understand. How do they not?
Merriam-Webster.com says:
Main Entry:
ox·y·gen [...]
Etymology:
French oxygčne, from Greek oxys, adjective, acidic, literally,
sharp + French -gčne -gen; akin to Latin acer sharp — more at edge
Main Entry:
-gen [...]
Etymology:
French -gčne, from Greek -gene-s born; akin to Greek genos birth
1 : producer <androgen> 2 : one that is (so) produced <cultigen>
Joachim Pense
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 09:14:12 GMT, "John Atkinson"
> <john...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, the ones who calqued it into Hebrew were almost certainly German
>>Jews, so they calqued it from "Sauerstoff", not directly from "oxygen".
>>And "Sauerstoff" is a pretty transparent compound word, so I bet they
>>did know what its components meant, whether or not they were scientists
>>(though, like Nathan, I think it very likely that they were).
>
> I'm not convinced that the average speaker of German would perceive
> "Sauerstoff" as a compound word.
I am convinced they would. Perceiving compounds as such is our second
nature.
> Although many German speakers might
> be able to guess, when they think about it, that it might have some
> *etymological* connection with "sauer" and/or "Stoff", it seems that
> most would habitually store it in their minds as just the arbitrary
> name of the substance -- a single, indivisible morpheme.
I am often impressed by native speakers of English who seem to feel
comfortable with morphemes of more than two syllables.
Joachim
mb
wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:20:15 -0700 (PDT), mb <azyth...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >...
> >> If you know that the Greek roots of "oxygen" mean literally "acid
> >> maker"
>
> >They certainly don't. Where do you get this nonsense?
>
> I don't understand. How do they not?
Read your own stuff, below: Oxy-gen, at the given umlaut grade, means
"born from acid". That's why they unclearly invoke a French
intermediary. Why do you think the Greek is "oxygónos"?
> Merriam-Webster.com says:
>
> Main Entry:
> ox·y·gen [...]
> Etymology:
> French oxygène, from Greek oxys, adjective, acidic, literally,
> sharp + French -gène -gen; akin to Latin acer sharp — more at edge
>
> Main Entry:
> -gen [...]
> Etymology:
> French -gène, from Greek -gene-s born; akin to Greek genos birth