Reason #24,341 to hate the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry

 By uber

Friday October 26th • Rantabulous, Science Category

5 Comments

1. dixie
   26th of October, 2007

   Haha. Hahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

   Try doing an undergrad in two different countries, then talk to me about linguistic oppression.

2. uber
   26th of October, 2007

   I’m reading CompSci - I might as well spend 50% of my time in the US.

   Anyway, the malodorous spelling is the correct BrE spelling aswell, since the IUPAC ‘leaned’ on the Royal Society of Chemistry.

3. dixie
   26th of October, 2007

   Reading (and even writing) across dialects is totally not the same as using the wrong word or pronunciation in a classroom setting. Or while being evaluated. Or while teaching.

   As for the f/ph debate…I have a memory of my 11th grade chemistry class where I actually did spell it “sulphur” and didn’t lose points because “that’s how the British spell it.” I expect in your line, if you felt like using the “ph” for the rest of your life it wouldn’t be much of an issue. Not like the amide debate…ye gods, what a disaster of miscommunication.

4. uber
   26th of October, 2007

   Tell that to my Electrochem lecturer who pronounced it Kyle-o-jewels, etc. Or my British-billions-using Indian Semiconductors lecturer.

   TBH I doubt the spelling of sulfur will be so much of an issue, I’m happier about the fact that Al remains properly spelled. I was more surprised that the change happened in 1992(!)

5. Mr.E
   27th of October, 2007

   In my Teaching English as a Foreign Language course over the summer, I decided to teach the difference between British and American applications of the word “billion”. My supervisor, who was English and in her thirties, had no idea what I was talking about.