From cbmvax!uunet!Think.COM!gls Thu May 16 16:08:48 1991
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!Think.COM!gls>
Date: Thu May 16 16:08:48 1991
Return-Path: <gls@Think.COM>
From: Guy Steele <cbmvax!uunet!Think.COM!gls>
Message-Id: <9105161824.AA15466@ukko.think.com>
To: pthomas@arecibo.aero.org
Cc: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
In-Reply-To: "PETE THOMAS"'s message of 15 May 91 07:42:00 PDT <9105151444.AA05602@relay1.UU.NET>
Subject: Chemical elements
Status: RO

   Date: 15 May 91 07:42:00 PDT
   From: "PETE THOMAS" <pthomas@arecibo.aero.org>

   >use in lay conversation, rather than internationality. Indeed, I have this
   >nagging suspicion that numbering the damn things will do just find (the
   >one-eight-chemical-primitive, rather than "Argon"). Have we given this any
   >consideration?

   This was my first thought when I saw the whole thread.  This is a
   culturally neutral, unambiguous way of representing a chemical element.

   However, I think we need to be able to say:

   x1 is-an-atom with x2 protons and x2 neutrons (or something to that 
   effect).  Once we can describe isotopes, we need some way of describing
   chemical compounds, etc., but whatever structures exist for combination
   can be used.

I have been given to believe that fairly recently a convention
was established for naming elements above 103 by number.  Each
decimal digit is assigned a syllable; you express the number of
protons and then add "ium".  Thus element 104 is unnilquadium
(un nil quad = 1 0 4).

--Guy