this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
799 points (96.7% liked)
Greentext
4396 readers
1149 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is one i in Aluminum. It is not silent.
All the other elements use an i before the u. At some point we should fix the spelling: Helum, Sodum, Plutonum, etc
Oh, really?
The official IUPAC spelling is "Aluminium" - notice how there are two "I"s in there.
Since IUPAC is quite literally the international authority on chemical terminology, I'd suggest their spelling is the correct one.
If you want to spell it wrong, you do you, but don't act like it's the correct way to spell it.
The IUPAC can spell it how they like. But what is correct in language is determined by the way people use it, not whatever archaic rules your middleschool teacher told you (english) or some central authority publishes (looking at you French and Spanish).
A quick search of lemmy gives >75 pages of aluminum comments, and <35 pages of aluminium comments.
I'm sure that will change when American cultural hegemony fades, but for now, it is what it is.
Ah of course, the heavily American-centric forum is obviously the perfect way to prove the entirely American misspelling is the correct one /s
You can spell or pronounce Aluminium however you like, but there is only one internationally recognised spelling, and it's not "Aluminum"
Those "archaic rules" exist to standardise international science communication, not to make America feel better about its inability to standardise to save its life.
That may be their objective, but they've clearly failed and should be rewritten to reflect reality, evidenced by the fact that half of scientific journals use Aluminum.
Of course if you'd like to stick entirely with the academic prescriptions, you're free to not use "email" in French, singular they in English, AI instead of KI in Norwegian, or find a use for "coronabebe", a word that is only used by the Royal Spanish Academy and people mocking how detached they are.
Once again - American journals.
You're downright ignorant to suggest that because one country refuses to follow an internationally agreed upon naming scheme it should be rewritten to suit you. That's the kind of logic that should come from a little kid, not a country.
I don't have enough context about all the examples you list to make an informed opinion of them, but I can certainly take a crack at a couple...
Singular they was historically discouraged in academic writing as it was seen as informal, but doesn't mean it was never acknowledged.
It has been used, just not widely - though with an academic swing towards gender-neutral language, it is seen as acceptable by most academic style guides...
However, in the scientific world you're not really supposed to refer to yourself personally in papers in the first place, so it's about as accepted as any other pronoun.
That's not just a Norwegian thing, it's a difference due to language.
AI is not an internationally standardised terminology, so of course different languages with different component words and/or grammar are going to end up with different acronyms.
For example, the Germans and Dutch also refer to it as KI (though in Dutch AI is also acceptable), and in Spain and France IA is the standard - that doesn't mean that academics wouldn't just agree on a term when working internationally.
As said before, I don't know enough about the other examples to make informed discussion of them, but the examples I do have context for are do not fall in the same category as America outright refusing to use internationally agreed upon terminology.
In any case, I don't think you're going to be convinced by any of the words I'm saying, nor do I think I'll be convinced by anything you could say, so I'm going to leave this here before I throw too much time into an endless back and forth.