If standards for capitalization change over time, do documents conforming to the old standard become ungrammatical? If so, what do you mean by ‘0’? If yes, what is the definition for ungrammatical?
What are the questions that spawned from this Community? Not directly related to the question itself but by circumstance I developed a question. No specific explanation of the question.
What is the capitalization of elements? Is it sodium or sodium? “The
rule governing this set by the ACS in its IUPAC documentation has changed the rule two times. I have been an ACS member. (not sure of all dates)
preceeding 1979 – don’t capitalize
1979 – 2004 – capitalize
2004 – give present – don’t
capitalize Let’s assume I wrote a document in 1999 describing the chemical elements of Sodium and Hydrogen, when it is advised to write them capitalized.
In the present year 2014, they should be lower-case: sodium and hydrogen.
What would make this document more accurate to the English language? Why? Is there any specific rule that applies specifically to technicality?
What are some examples of old grammatical rules which can prevent a document from being out of date? If the information contained within is still relevant, then certainly it would be a legitimate source.
If the grammarians decided tomorrow that all versions of “to be” should be conjugated as “is,” that wouldn’t make documents written today or earlier incorrect. Instead they would be product of an earlier grammar……….. We see this very often when analyzing older documents and it is understood that the rules of grammar have changed over time.
When IUPAC sets the rules for chemical nomenclature by committee, chemists usually refer to a “preferred usage” rather than declaring older versions to be ungrammatical. As you may have seen, the terms “iron(III) chloride” are less obvious and tend to miss the mark but still have similar meaning. Ancestry terms are still used, they aren’t preferred any longer and are generally discouraged.
What are some of the mistakes
- I could have made if I answer all of the questions you are asking?
- Why is it incorrect? Because of changes in the rules.
- Is there any rule that applies specifically to this technicality? I wasn’t able to find one in my search through the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry literature, but there might be one.
To politely disagree with your final paragraph, a document might well be outdated because the grammar that existed at its creation has changed. From a capitalization point of view, where does this issue come from?
- Consists of a single calorie (in lower case C), so that the temperature of water is one Celsius, the amount of energy needed is one Celsius. If energy is kept constant for one atmosphere, the amount of energy needed will be zero.
- A Calorie (capital C) is the amount of energy required to raise one kilogram of water a temperature of one atmosphere and is also referred to as a kilogram or nutritional calorie.
Why does Fower treen havet bourne frut. So let me give you an example of this
using Middle English.
What does a sentence really mean? Is it possible to identify a type of tree called a “fower” and make typos in that name? Something like flowers, like shrubs and shrubs? What does “four trees have borne fruit”?
What have you done so far like a person?
If the grammarians decided tomorrow that all versions of “to be” should be conjugated as “is,” that wouldn’t make documents written today or earlier incorrect. Instead they would be product of an earlier grammar……….. We see this very often when analyzing older documents and it is understood that the rules of grammar have changed over time.
When IUPAC sets the rules for chemical nomenclature by committee, chemists usually refer to a “preferred usage” rather than declaring older versions to be ungrammatical. As you may have seen, the terms “iron(III) chloride” are less obvious and tend to miss the mark but still have similar meaning. Ancestry terms are still used, they aren’t preferred any longer and are generally discouraged.
If the grammarians decided tomorrow that all versions of “to be” should be conjugated as “is,” that wouldn’t make documents written today or earlier incorrect. Instead they would be product of an earlier grammar……….. We see this very often when analyzing older documents and it is understood that the rules of grammar have changed over time.
When IUPAC sets the rules for chemical nomenclature by committee, chemists usually refer to a “preferred usage” rather than declaring older versions to be ungrammatical. As you may have seen, the terms “iron(III) chloride” are less obvious and tend to miss the mark but still have similar meaning. Ancestry terms are still used, they aren’t preferred any longer and are generally discouraged.
If the grammarians decided tomorrow that all versions of “to be” should be conjugated as “is,” that wouldn’t make documents written today or earlier incorrect. Instead they would be product of an earlier grammar……….. We see this very often when analyzing older documents and it is understood that the rules of grammar have changed over time.
When IUPAC sets the rules for chemical nomenclature by committee, chemists usually refer to a “preferred usage” rather than declaring older versions to be ungrammatical. As you may have seen, the terms “iron(III) chloride” are less obvious and tend to miss the mark but still have similar meaning. Ancestry terms are still used, they aren’t preferred any longer and are generally discouraged.
What are some of the mistakes
- I could have made if I answer all of the questions you are asking?
- Why is it incorrect? Because of changes in the rules.
- Is there any rule that applies specifically to this technicality? I wasn’t able to find one in my search through the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry literature, but there might be one.
To politely disagree with your final paragraph, a document might well be outdated because the grammar that existed at its creation has changed. From a capitalization point of view, where does this issue come from?
- Consists of a single calorie (in lower case C), so that the temperature of water is one Celsius, the amount of energy needed is one Celsius. If energy is kept constant for one atmosphere, the amount of energy needed will be zero.
- A Calorie (capital C) is the amount of energy required to raise one kilogram of water a temperature of one atmosphere and is also referred to as a kilogram or nutritional calorie.
Why does Fower treen havet bourne frut. So let me give you an example of this
using Middle English.
What does a sentence really mean? Is it possible to identify a type of tree called a “fower” and make typos in that name? Something like flowers, like shrubs and shrubs? What does “four trees have borne fruit”?
What have you done so far like a person?
What are some of the mistakes
- I could have made if I answer all of the questions you are asking?
- Why is it incorrect? Because of changes in the rules.
- Is there any rule that applies specifically to this technicality? I wasn’t able to find one in my search through the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry literature, but there might be one.
To politely disagree with your final paragraph, a document might well be outdated because the grammar that existed at its creation has changed. From a capitalization point of view, where does this issue come from?
- Consists of a single calorie (in lower case C), so that the temperature of water is one Celsius, the amount of energy needed is one Celsius. If energy is kept constant for one atmosphere, the amount of energy needed will be zero.
- A Calorie (capital C) is the amount of energy required to raise one kilogram of water a temperature of one atmosphere and is also referred to as a kilogram or nutritional calorie.
Why does Fower treen havet bourne frut. So let me give you an example of this
using Middle English.
What does a sentence really mean? Is it possible to identify a type of tree called a “fower” and make typos in that name? Something like flowers, like shrubs and shrubs? What does “four trees have borne fruit”?
What have you done so far like a person?
