On 18/05/2015 23:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/05/15 23:05, Malcolm Race wrote:
On 18/05/2015 20:37, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/05/15 20:14, Jonno wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4pJAgWIUAEZb7p.jpg



I'm going to start a campaign to put the "ph" back into sulphur.

and the u back into colour.

er - it's still there...

"sulfur" is the new official english scientific spelling since a decade
or two ago - apparently.


I'm not sure such merkanisms are official, but more likely the fault of
MS Word. I find that opening a document set to use US English
spell/grammar checking will re-set the default in Word, which then sees
UK-specific terms as wrong in all documents. I'm sure many people never
change their language settings from new either.
Many people use the full-fat version of autocorrect and therefore wind
up with the wrong thing without even knowing it. Others may be less
confident about their knowledge and when Word makes a suggestion they
believe it to be right and so accept it.
It doesn't help that the MS checkers seem to have been written by
someone with only a rudimentary grasp of English, of any flavour.
The only[1] solution is to turn off all autocorrects and take
responibility for your own errors. Apart from mine, of course, for
which I blame the keyboard....

[1] The other solution would be to teach English in school, ideally
primary school, but the standard of undergraduate (il)literacy indicates
that has been abandoned.

On 19/05/15 08:50, GMM wrote:
On 18/05/2015 23:47, Tim Watts wrote:

"sulfur" is the new official english scientific spelling since a decade
or two ago - apparently.


I'm not sure such merkanisms are official, but more likely the fault of
MS Word.


It does seem to be according to the International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry (IUPAC):

International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebit...uelsrev5.shtml

https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contac...ications/16238

I suspect the BBC and Oxford are going with the "official" spelling.

I find that opening a document set to use US English
spell/grammar checking will re-set the default in Word, which then sees
UK-specific terms as wrong in all documents. I'm sure many people never
change their language settings from new either.
Many people use the full-fat version of autocorrect and therefore wind
up with the wrong thing without even knowing it. Others may be less
confident about their knowledge and when Word makes a suggestion they
believe it to be right and so accept it.
It doesn't help that the MS checkers seem to have been written by
someone with only a rudimentary grasp of English, of any flavour.
The only[1] solution is to turn off all autocorrects and take
responibility for your own errors. Apart from mine, of course, for
which I blame the keyboard....

[1] The other solution would be to teach English in school, ideally
primary school, but the standard of undergraduate (il)literacy indicates
that has been abandoned.

In message , Huge
writes
On 2015-05-19, GMM wrote:
On 18/05/2015 23:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/05/15 23:05, Malcolm Race wrote:
On 18/05/2015 20:37, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/05/15 20:14, Jonno wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4pJAgWIUAEZb7p.jpg



I'm going to start a campaign to put the "ph" back into sulphur.

and the u back into colour.

er - it's still there...

"sulfur" is the new official english scientific spelling since a decade
or two ago - apparently.


I'm not sure such merkanisms are official, but more likely the fault of
MS Word.

Um, no. They're decided by IUPAC - the International Union of Pure
and Applied Chemists.

Yup, IIRC, Sulfur was adopted as the official spelling by IUPAC in
1990, and by the RSC in the UK a little later.

I think it's sensible to have a internationally agreed spelling of such
things. IIRC, there is an argument that -f makes more sense given the
latin root of the word, -ph being a Greek thing.

It doesn't mean someone can't use the -ph spelling, but I would use the
internationally accepted spelling in documents where it mattered.

Personally, I pretty laid back on the changing style of English, it
always has, and will continue to do so.
--
Chris French

In message , Chris French
writes



Personally, I pretty laid back on the changing style of English, it
always has, and will continue to do so.

Some of us are pre-programmed to resist change - such as spelling
'programme' as program (but only when it refers to computers).
--
Ian

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Chris French
writes
Personally, I pretty laid back on the changing style of English, it always
has, and will continue to do so.
Some of us are pre-programmed to resist change - such as spelling
'programme' as program (but only when it refers to computers).

"Proactive" and "reactive", instead of "active" and "reactive"?

On 19/05/15 15:55, gareth wrote:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Chris French
writes
Personally, I pretty laid back on the changing style of English, it always
has, and will continue to do so.
Some of us are pre-programmed to resist change - such as spelling
'programme' as program (but only when it refers to computers).

"Proactive" and "reactive", instead of "active" and "reactive"?



Prescribed - meaning indicated in a written statement - as against
proscribed - banned, in a written statement.

I wish I had taken that to court - 'parking in a prescribed area' on a
pre printed ticket, in of all places Cambridge, seat of learning...




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In message , gareth
writes
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Chris French
writes
Personally, I pretty laid back on the changing style of English, it always
has, and will continue to do so.
Some of us are pre-programmed to resist change - such as spelling
'programme' as program (but only when it refers to computers).

"Proactive" and "reactive", instead of "active" and "reactive"?

Not 'instead'.
"Active" is essentially a neutral word (the opposite being "passive").
"Proactive" means actively taking the initiative.
"Reactive" means only taking an action in response to some action or
situation.




--
Ian

On 19/05/2015 10:22, Tim Watts wrote:
On 19/05/15 08:50, GMM wrote:
On 18/05/2015 23:47, Tim Watts wrote:

"sulfur" is the new official english scientific spelling since a decade
or two ago - apparently.


I'm not sure such merkanisms are official, but more likely the fault of
MS Word.


It does seem to be according to the International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry (IUPAC):

International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebit...uelsrev5.shtml


https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contac...ications/16238

I suspect the BBC and Oxford are going with the "official" spelling.

Interesting: I don't read IUPAC publications very often (or at all
really), but the only time I've ever had it altered has been by
sub-editors of US journals, never in UK journals.

In general though, I wouldn't take BBC style as guidance for anything
these days. A lot of their online offer is very poorly written and/or
sub-edited.

Oddly enough, there are many place names in the US spelt Sulphur (-
something, Springs etc), so there must have been a time when they could
spell properly.....

On 19/05/2015 08:50, GMM wrote:
On 18/05/2015 23:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/05/15 23:05, Malcolm Race wrote:
On 18/05/2015 20:37, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/05/15 20:14, Jonno wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4pJAgWIUAEZb7p.jpg



I'm going to start a campaign to put the "ph" back into sulphur.

and the u back into colour.

er - it's still there...

"sulfur" is the new official english scientific spelling since a decade
or two ago - apparently.


I'm not sure such merkanisms are official, but more likely the fault of
MS Word.

The names are decided by international comities.
The name for sulfur doesn't have ph in it any more, but that metal is
spelt aluminium now.

On 19/05/15 20:37, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/05/2015 08:50, GMM wrote:
On 18/05/2015 23:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/05/15 23:05, Malcolm Race wrote:
On 18/05/2015 20:37, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/05/15 20:14, Jonno wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4pJAgWIUAEZb7p.jpg



I'm going to start a campaign to put the "ph" back into sulphur.

and the u back into colour.

er - it's still there...

"sulfur" is the new official english scientific spelling since a decade
or two ago - apparently.


I'm not sure such merkanisms are official, but more likely the fault of
MS Word.

The names are decided by international comities.

WTF is a comitie?

The name for sulfur doesn't have ph in it any more, but that metal

Sulphur isn't a metal.

is
spelt aluminium now.

And it isn't spelt aluminium. It's spelt sulphur.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 19/05/2015 20:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The names are decided by international comities.


WTF is a comitie?


I have no idea, its a spell chucker not a dictionary.