27 No. 5
|Up for Discussion
||A forum for members and member organizations to share ideas and concerns.
Send your comments by e-mail to [email protected]
Erratum: Wolfram vs. Tungsten
The editor apologizes for having inadvertently edited the last paragraph of Damhus’ reply (July-August CI) and consequently rendered the conclusion illegible. It should have read as follows:
To summarize, Profs. Goya and Román have highlighted an example of having to make non-trivial choices when devising nomenclature recommendations. We believe that if one wishes to control proliferation of alternatives, be as systematic as possible, and at the same time not ignore prevailing usage in English—the language in which we have agreed to provide our recommendations—we have made the right choices regarding tungsten/wolfram and names derived from these. At the same time, the Spanish, the Danes and many other nationalities may happily continue to use wolfram in their locally adapted IUPAC nomenclatures.
last modified 22 August 2005.
Copyright © 2003-2005 International Union of Pure and
Questions regarding the website, please contact [email protected]