View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Carles Millan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 1474
Location: Catalonia
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2009 17:39 Post subject: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Hi!
I'm not a native English speaker, so I start this topic only for informative purposes. Just to learn.
I wonder why the most common species containing calcium is named calcite and the simpler mineral with magnesium is known as magnesite, but the same rule does not apply to barium: the barium sulphate is the baryte, with Y.
Does anyone know the reason for breaking such rule? A rule that is not met by everybody... _________________ Al carrer Duran i Bas, si no hi vas no t'hi duran |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alfredo
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 979
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2009 18:23 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Carles, if you look for logic in english spelling, you will become a very frustrated man! Better buy some aspirin. If you prefer logical languages, I recommend Esperanto.
By the way, in american english it is spelled "Baryte", british english is "baryte". Mindat website uses "baryte" because it's based in England.
There are other differences between british and american mineral spellings too, for example aluminium and aluminum...
Saludos,
Alfredo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John S. White
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1295
Location: Stewartstown, Pennsylvania, USA
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2009 18:29 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
I would add siderite and chalybite. In spite of this, the IMA does state a preference, the English notwithstanding. _________________ John S. White
aka Rondinaire |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Peter Megaw
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 963
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2009 18:33 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
George Bernard Shaw said it well. The British and the Americans are "two people separated by a common language"
BTW, I thought it was barytes (like pyrites)? _________________ Siempre Adelante! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alfredo
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 979
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2009 19:00 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
This brings me to a related question: Doesn't the IMA only specify official names for minerals in english? When they approve a new species, I never hear of any official pronouncement on what the chinese name will be, only the "english" name. Therefore. the IMA should specify, when they approve a new name, whether the approbation applies to the British or the American version (or rather, the authors should specify that on submission of the name proposal). Then our colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic could decide what the spelling in their own dialect of english is going to be, because surely they have as many linguistic rights in this respect as Chinese, Catalan or Swahili speakers do?
;-)) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Peter Megaw
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 963
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2009 19:08 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Who then writes the pronunciation guide? _________________ Siempre Adelante! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Carles Millan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 1474
Location: Catalonia
|
Posted: Apr 14, 2009 00:08 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Hi Alfredo!
You're right. Languages don't have any logic, Esperanto being an exception since it was created in a 'laboratory'. English does not, of course. Neither does Catalan (my own native language).
You're right too: Mindat is based in England, as everybody knows. But Wikipedia also spells "baryte", with Y. Where is Wikipedia based? Everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
But I finally found in my small library the "Fleischer's Glossary of Mineral Species 2004". It spells "Baryte", with I.
What should we do then? _________________ Al carrer Duran i Bas, si no hi vas no t'hi duran |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keldjarn
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 157
|
Posted: Apr 14, 2009 01:50 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Carles,
you are changing the question from why there is a difference between the English and American way of spelling baryite/Baryte to what should we do about it ?
As another non-native user of English the answer is simple. My main responsibility lies with the correct use of mineral names and other technical and scientific words in my own language (Norwegian). I have no problems living with differences between the American and English way of spelling words -i.e. color and colour - or baryte and Baryte.
With the angloamericanisation of most other languages it is much more important to ensure that proper words are found and used correctly for minerals and mineralogical terms also in Catalan or Norwegian.
Knut |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Montanpark
Joined: 06 Nov 2008
Posts: 241
Location: Mainz
|
Posted: Apr 14, 2009 02:51 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Morning all,
now .. i have no problem with baryte ;-) as i write it Baryt - german spelling, hehe. But if you look at the origin of the word, from the greek βαρύς (barýs) the spelling with "y" is- at least to me - the logical one and "Baryte" feels like a malapropism to me although it is "official" AE spelling.
just 2 cents
cheers
Roger |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chris
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 538
Location: Grenoble
|
Posted: Apr 14, 2009 10:38 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Hi folks,
In France (part of the language is based on old greek) we use baryte. So baryte is just fine, even if I sometimes struggle to remember which spelling is the English one and which one is the American :-)
So tell me which way you spell baryte and I'll tell you which is your nationality ;-)
Christophe |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Carles Millan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 1474
Location: Catalonia
|
Posted: Apr 15, 2009 16:46 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Hi!
Should we then consider that the pair 'Baryte/baryte' falls in the same category as the other pairs like 'color/colour', 'organize/organise' and so on? Is it just a matter of double American/British orthography?
If so, I think we can ignore the recommendations of the IMA and write 'Baryte'. But not the rules that Mindat enforces to those who publish pictures there, since you are not free to write the name of the species. And probably we cannot amend the English Wikipedia, who also imposes 'baryte'.
Many thanks to all for having helped. _________________ Al carrer Duran i Bas, si no hi vas no t'hi duran |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alfredo
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 979
|
Posted: Apr 15, 2009 16:57 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Carles, One other factor to consider is that most languages have an official body to decide on correct spelling/grammer/usage, like the Academia Real del Idioma for spanish, Monbusho for japanese, etc. But english is a linguistic anarchy; there is no body that has the authority to decide on correct usage. Long live linguistic anarchy?
Saludos,
Alfredo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Carles Millan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 1474
Location: Catalonia
|
Posted: Apr 15, 2009 17:23 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Hi Alfredo!
The English anarchy has advantages and disadvantages at the same time.
But one thing is the regular or plain words that people use on a daily basis, and quite another the scientific names. Think also in the species names of the animals and plants. It seems reasonable that an organization (like IMA with minerals) regulate such names.
English speakers can choose between 'color' and 'colour', according to their preferences or the country where they live, but I also think they are not to be allowed to choose between 'Baryte' and 'baryte'. It is not their business. A 'tyrannosaurus rex' is a 'tyrannosaurus rex' everywhere. Neither the Americans nor the English should be able to change that name. Not a single letter. _________________ Al carrer Duran i Bas, si no hi vas no t'hi duran |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alfredo
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 979
|
Posted: Apr 15, 2009 18:08 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Cerles, Tyrranosaurus rex is latin, not english. In english the biological names are just as chaotic as the mineral names! For example "buffalo" in America, "bison" in Britain, where a buffalo is a completely different animal... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alfredo
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 979
|
Posted: Apr 15, 2009 18:11 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Sorry Carles, I mispelled your name in my last post (accidentally; not an attempt to illustrate spelling anarchy!). But when I looked for the "edit" button to correct it, I find my edit button has disappeared. Why have we lost the ability to edit our own posts? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jesse Fisher
Joined: 18 Mar 2009
Posts: 629
Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Apr 15, 2009 19:26 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Peter,
The spelling "barytes" (pronounced bare-RITE-ease) is used in the UK to denote commercial baryte ore, just as "fluorspar" is used for commercially extracted fluorite.
An interesting aside to the spelling issue is that in two import books published last year on British mineralogy (Minerals of Britian and Ireland by Andy Tindle, and Minerals of Northern England by Symes and Young) the authors, who are all British academic mineralogists use the "American" spelling. Anarchy, indeed! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keldjarn
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 157
|
Posted: Apr 16, 2009 01:30 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
I think the respect for IMA in relation to the correct spelling of mineral names is totally overrated. In my view a mineral species is defined by the chemical composition and the structure of the compound as presented in the published type description and as accepted by the IMA (with possible later published data to refine or modify). It is this part of the IIMA work of standardisation that really has to be subject to peer review by the international scientific community and to stand the test of the time. Spelling of mineral names or even naming of minerals are changing all the time (remember the heated discussions about Fluorapatite or Apatite-CaF and similar minerals). It is quite telling that these changes were introduced without an independent peer review process as would have been the case for the publication of new mineral descriptions in a scientific journal..
Other languages also modify their naming of minerals according to their own linguistic structure - but luckily there are no national modifications of the chemical formula or structure ! As long as we speak different languages we have to live with what somebody may consider a "linguistic anarchy" in the spelling of mineral names. The fact that most scientific papers and websites use one or another version of the English language may be a transient periode in this changing world. In the near future we may as well adjust to the spelling of mineral names in Mandarin.
Knut |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jordi Fabre
Overall coordinator of the Forum
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 4900
Location: Barcelona
|
Posted: Apr 16, 2009 04:45 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Alfredo wrote:
"when I looked for the "edit" button to correct it, I find my edit button has disappeared. Why have we lost the ability to edit our own posts?"
We got troubles on the past with people editing its own messages after a while adding publicity on it or deleting photos without our knowledge, so we decided to avoid this ability. Alfredo, you can edit your own messages in the forum moderated for you: "Questions about mineral specimens" but not in other forum, and as this post is placed in the forum " Minerals and Mineralogy" you can't edit it. I'm sorry.
Jordi |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jordi Fabre
Overall coordinator of the Forum
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 4900
Location: Barcelona
|
Posted: Apr 16, 2009 04:46 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
To simplify my life I use the IMA accepted names, and I just change the last letter of the mineral name "e" by an "a". This change is officially accepted by the IMA for Spanish language. The problem is that this create a lot of very strange names in Spanish language like for example: "Phosphophyllita" instead the more usual: "Fosfofilita".
We discussed a lot about this in the Spanish Forum and many people don't be happy with my way to nominate the minerals in Spanish language, but at least everybody can use a single book: the Fleischer's Glossary, and find there every mineral. If I write properly in Spanish language "Fosfofilita" people just don't will find it in the Fleischer because they will search in the "F" letter and it is listed by the "P". As in Spanish language it don't exist a Fleischer version or similar, this is the only way that I find to label my specimens in a way that result more or less comprehensible for both worlds, English and Spanish.
Jordi |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John S. White
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1295
Location: Stewartstown, Pennsylvania, USA
|
Posted: Apr 16, 2009 04:58 Post subject: Re: Baryte vs. Baryte |
|
|
Amen Jordi, I strongly believe that your approach is the only rational one. The number of examples that are radically different, such as the one you cited, are relatively few and the Spanish, the Italians, the Portuguese, the Germans and the Russians, etc., have all managed to figure out what the English forms are. It makes great sense to have a standardized form for every mineral name that is recognized internationally, and Fleischer's Glossary is the best available listing in book form. Once again I must point out that mindat.org is also excellent in this capacity. _________________ John S. White
aka Rondinaire |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|