I take the view that I'm trying to communicate with as many people as possible, without distracting them with my spelling . . . So go for US spellings.
Sent from mobile On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, 22:39 Goldman, Adrian, <adrian.gold...@helsinki.fi> wrote: > ..and responding in the same vein: > > my OED says that its etymology also comes from the Latin sulfur, sulphura > in the plural. So there is an etymological basis for the ph, even if it > doesn’t come from Greek. > > Plus, since when has etymological logic has _anything_ to do with English > spelling? > > Finally, it may be how the RSC is spelling it, but I would take a fair bet > that writers of English prose today (pace America), contemplating an stinky > inferno, will write “sulphurous flames”, not the unattractive and less > stinky “sulfurous ones”. > > Adrian > > > On 23 Jul 2019, at 22:21, CCP4BB < > 0000193323b1e616-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk> wrote: > > Hi > > Going off at a tangent... > > The accepted spelling by the Royal Society of Chemistry (i.e. the > professional body representing chemists in the U.K.) since at least the > early 1990s has been "sulfate" too. "Sulphur", etc, has been deprecated for > quite some time. Why? Well, there's no good etymological reason for the > "ph" in "sulphate". My 1984 copy of Greenwood and Earnshaw's "Chemistry of > the Elements", written in Yorkshire, uses "sulfur" etc throughout. > > "Phosphorus" comes from the Greek, so retains the "ph"s on both sides of > the pond. > > Element 13 appears to have started life as "alumium", mutated to > "aluminum", and finally (in the English speaking world outside North > America) settled down as "aluminium". > > Harry > -- > Dr Harry Powell > > On 23 Jul 2019, at 17:12, Engin Özkan <eoz...@uchicago.edu> wrote: > > On 7/23/19 3:35 AM, melanie.voll...@diamond.ac.uk wrote: > > No longer those 20 odd names for ammonium sulphate > > > You mean ammonium *sulfate*. As it is called across the pond. :) > > On a related note on common nomenclature for recording crystallization > experiments that Janet brought up: > > I find it odd that we still do not report cryo-protection methods and > conditions in PDB depositions. Given that a large fraction of the small > molecules observed in crystal structures are derived from the > cryo-protectants, one would think that reporting the contents of that > solution (and pH) would be paramount to a PDB deposition. Surely, the > crystallographic experiment has changed since 1990/use of synchrotron > sources, which PDB has adjusted well to in most other aspects (e.g., > including reporting of synchrotron x-ray optics and all the new > detectors during submission). > > Engin > > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
