Re: [ccp4bb]: summary of sulphate spelling

[Jens Thomas Kaiser <kaiser@caltech.edu>]

***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***

Aaron Oakley wrote:

> ***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
> ***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***
>
> >Just to be anal: sulfur is Latin which has never had a 'ph'. That's Greek,
> which will be verified by Tassos. The
> >Romans didn't like the Greek and would be very upset. There was an article
> in Nature a long time ago advocating
>
> What about the high level of homology between Greek and Roman gods?
>

the gods were actually adopted by the romans, because "you never know" if the
greek weren"t adoring the right gods, and so they thought "better bulid a temple
for the wrong god, than making a right god upset of me, because i didn't build him
a temple" - quite oportunistic, but somehow like crystal screening......


>
> For what it's worth, I was taught to spell it "sulfur" from Day One (being
> ~1990, my 1st year
> of undergraduate chemistry).
>

and that's correct. the root of the word sulfur is the /latin/ word sulfur
the naming of sulfur-compounds mixes latin and greek naming quite niceley (confer
thioles, dithionite, which actually is the greek word for sulfur)

the /political correct/ spelling of phosphorous as either fosphor or phosfor ist
not quite correct, it should read phosfer or luxphor as it actualy means 'carrier
of light' so just switching f to ph is not a translation from greek to latin....
;-)

take care

>
> Aaron
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003