Gisèle Pelicot - Husband Jailed...
News4 mins ago
What does Brimstone look like?
16 Answers
(as in the rock -like in 'fire and brimstone') thanks in advance x
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by SizzleSquid. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Excuse the spelling used by this site...
http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photosul.html
Good to see Clanad didn't utilise the dubious spelling preferred his fellow countrymen ;-)
http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photosul.html
Good to see Clanad didn't utilise the dubious spelling preferred his fellow countrymen ;-)
-- answer removed --
I agree,mjd.
It is extraordinary that just because some committee or other makes a decision, others feel they have to follow it like sheep. Committees don't have the authority to mess about with the English language except within their own little coterie.
Therefore to say that SULFUR is the "correct" spelling is impertinent.
ALUMINUM is more interesting. When Humphry Davy first discovered that element he named it ALUMIUM so as to preserve the -IUM ending of similar metallic elements like sodium, potassium, etc.
Then unaccountably he changed it to ALUMINUM, which the Americans duly adopted. The British still wanted the IUM ending, but instead of going back to the simpler ALUMIUM, added an other syllable to come up with ALUMINIUM. So here the Americans have the edge, I think, in that they followed the discoverer.
It is extraordinary that just because some committee or other makes a decision, others feel they have to follow it like sheep. Committees don't have the authority to mess about with the English language except within their own little coterie.
Therefore to say that SULFUR is the "correct" spelling is impertinent.
ALUMINUM is more interesting. When Humphry Davy first discovered that element he named it ALUMIUM so as to preserve the -IUM ending of similar metallic elements like sodium, potassium, etc.
Then unaccountably he changed it to ALUMINUM, which the Americans duly adopted. The British still wanted the IUM ending, but instead of going back to the simpler ALUMIUM, added an other syllable to come up with ALUMINIUM. So here the Americans have the edge, I think, in that they followed the discoverer.
Another good pictire here:
http://www.suzanneplunkett.com/images/Sulphur. jpg
And CORBYLOON, I disagree with your first statement. Just because one small section of the community has decided to standardise (?-iZe) on what most consider to be the American spelling, does not suddenly make it the 'Correct Spelling'. Most people would take the 'Correct Spelling' of a word to be that which is found in a dictionary, but dictionaries are dynamic and change to reflect usage in the 'real world'.
Check the entry in Chambers:
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/featu res/chref/chref.py/main?title=21st&query=sulph ur
It still equates the ...F.. spelling with the US.
Look up pollution articles on any of the UK Newspaper websites or the BBC website and you will find references to 'sulphur emissions', 'sulphur dioxide' etc. Their readers would more than likely complain if they changed it.
So long as common usage of the word spells it as SULPHUR, then by definition, that will be the 'Correct Spelling'.
Only if you were writing a scientific paper for international readership would you be expected to conform with the SULFUR spelling.
Finally, If the Aberdeen Doric Preservtion Society decreed that the only 'correct' spelling henceforth would be LOUN, would you feel compelled to change your username?
http://www.suzanneplunkett.com/images/Sulphur. jpg
And CORBYLOON, I disagree with your first statement. Just because one small section of the community has decided to standardise (?-iZe) on what most consider to be the American spelling, does not suddenly make it the 'Correct Spelling'. Most people would take the 'Correct Spelling' of a word to be that which is found in a dictionary, but dictionaries are dynamic and change to reflect usage in the 'real world'.
Check the entry in Chambers:
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/featu res/chref/chref.py/main?title=21st&query=sulph ur
It still equates the ...F.. spelling with the US.
Look up pollution articles on any of the UK Newspaper websites or the BBC website and you will find references to 'sulphur emissions', 'sulphur dioxide' etc. Their readers would more than likely complain if they changed it.
So long as common usage of the word spells it as SULPHUR, then by definition, that will be the 'Correct Spelling'.
Only if you were writing a scientific paper for international readership would you be expected to conform with the SULFUR spelling.
Finally, If the Aberdeen Doric Preservtion Society decreed that the only 'correct' spelling henceforth would be LOUN, would you feel compelled to change your username?
You will see two British bodies have recommended the Sulfur spelling. You may think the IUPAC is a small section of the community but it is an international body responsible for the naming of elements amongst many other things.
As for the spelling of "LOON," I would hope the Society would spell its own name correctly before giving judgement on other words...
As for the spelling of "LOON," I would hope the Society would spell its own name correctly before giving judgement on other words...
The Oxford English Dictionary spells the element S as "sulphur". The use of the greek "ph" in the spelling has been present in England since the 14th Century. Why change now? If consistency across all nations is necessary then we need a common word for S in all languages, not just UK and American English.
We could change the spelling of "phosphorus" to "fosforus" and the British Pharmacopoeia could become the BF.
We could change the spelling of "phosphorus" to "fosforus" and the British Pharmacopoeia could become the BF.
Oh dear Corbyloon, I'm afraid you've misunderstood quite a few things about this issue.
To begin with, I can speak with some authority on this matter as I'm a university science dean and a professor of biochemistry. who has had the privilage of working in the UK , USA and Canada. The issue of nomenclature is something I deal with on a daily basis as I'll try to show below.
The IUPAC adoption of Sulfer as an acceptable spelling of Sulphur was due to the fact that our friends over the pond insisted it was the "correct" spelling en masse. The fact that many of the major american scientific suppliers labelled their reagents using the spelling did not help the situation. In addition, a number of IUPAC Comitteee members at the time were senior american scientists with one particular hard-nosed individual would not listen to reason and accept that his European colleagues had a valid point in trying to remain with the status quo. As a result, "sulfer" was indeed adopted as a spelling, but (and here's the important part), it was an "acceptable alternative spelling". IUPAC did not insist that "sulfer" was adopted the world over.
To begin with, I can speak with some authority on this matter as I'm a university science dean and a professor of biochemistry. who has had the privilage of working in the UK , USA and Canada. The issue of nomenclature is something I deal with on a daily basis as I'll try to show below.
The IUPAC adoption of Sulfer as an acceptable spelling of Sulphur was due to the fact that our friends over the pond insisted it was the "correct" spelling en masse. The fact that many of the major american scientific suppliers labelled their reagents using the spelling did not help the situation. In addition, a number of IUPAC Comitteee members at the time were senior american scientists with one particular hard-nosed individual would not listen to reason and accept that his European colleagues had a valid point in trying to remain with the status quo. As a result, "sulfer" was indeed adopted as a spelling, but (and here's the important part), it was an "acceptable alternative spelling". IUPAC did not insist that "sulfer" was adopted the world over.
As far as the RSC is concerned, again I speak with some authority as I'm, a let us say, senior member of the august body. . Here, the motives for accepting the alternative spelling were slightly different. Our scientific colleagues in the USA were inundating the scientific community with papers using the alternative spelling and major suppliers of scientific equipment were moving into the European Market. As an example, at the time, an american company called Fisher Scientific were supplying most laboratories in the UK and they insisted on using the "sulfur" spelling. Personally, it was one thing for me to pick up a winchester of "sulfuric acid" in the USA, but I've never found it acceptable to do the same in the UK.
Just to demonstrate the point, my laboratories purchase chemicals from a good, highly-reliable UK supplier called Philip Harris. This company has been supplying schools and universities for decades. Here's the page for one of their sulphuric acid products:
http://www.philipharris.co.uk/webapp/wcs/store s/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10501&store Id=72&productId=183987&langId=-1&search=true
This should amply demonstrate the current opinion on the matter in the UK. Moreover, Philip Harris are not alone. We purchase biochemicals and chemicals from countless other UK suppliers who are all quite happy to conform to the UK spelling
Just to demonstrate the point, my laboratories purchase chemicals from a good, highly-reliable UK supplier called Philip Harris. This company has been supplying schools and universities for decades. Here's the page for one of their sulphuric acid products:
http://www.philipharris.co.uk/webapp/wcs/store s/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10501&store Id=72&productId=183987&langId=-1&search=true
This should amply demonstrate the current opinion on the matter in the UK. Moreover, Philip Harris are not alone. We purchase biochemicals and chemicals from countless other UK suppliers who are all quite happy to conform to the UK spelling
As for the QCA, they did not "recommend" it in the sense you imply. They actually state in the regulations that it's acceptable to use it but don't give any overall preference and it has certainly not been adopted by all the boards. The predominant board in my area detests americanised spellings and many others including the WJEC, who I work closely with, show similar leanings.
The IUPAC is indeed a prestigious and important commitee for chemists and other scientists worldwide. However, their function is not to impose a particular spelling globally and they will not do so. Nevertheless, my learned colleague, gen2 is correct in that most papers published in international journals do use the American spelling.
Finally, I�d suggest that you don�t take this scientific spelling issue too seriously. It�s all very well the Americans insisting they are using the correct spelling, but I�ve been known to point out how illogical their spelling really is when I�ve been surrounded by them. If you want to see them totally gobsmacked, ask an American why they haven�t removed the the �p� from �psychology�. Believe me, I�ve left a few common rooms in total silence.
The IUPAC is indeed a prestigious and important commitee for chemists and other scientists worldwide. However, their function is not to impose a particular spelling globally and they will not do so. Nevertheless, my learned colleague, gen2 is correct in that most papers published in international journals do use the American spelling.
Finally, I�d suggest that you don�t take this scientific spelling issue too seriously. It�s all very well the Americans insisting they are using the correct spelling, but I�ve been known to point out how illogical their spelling really is when I�ve been surrounded by them. If you want to see them totally gobsmacked, ask an American why they haven�t removed the the �p� from �psychology�. Believe me, I�ve left a few common rooms in total silence.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Body & Soul5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Society & Culture11 mins ago
Case So Bad, Jury Excused From Service...
News21 mins ago