Diskusija:Tenesīns

Jaunais nosaukums

Latviski vēl nekur šis nosaukums oficiāli nav minēts, bet IUPAC uzsver, ka tam nav obligāti jātiek citās valodās veidotam pēc angļu valodas parauga. Tikpat labi varētu būt arī "tenesijs", vai, pēc analoģijas ar halogēniem — "teness" :) --ScAvenger (diskusija) 2016. gada 3. decembris, plkst. 14.09 (EET)

Hello @ScAvenger: and anyone interested, I apologize for writing in English, I do not speak Latvian. However, I am a chemist, very much involved in nomenclature. English is not my first language, a big part of my work involves domesticating foreign terminology into our language, and in connection to that I follow evolution of some issues in other languages, too. Latvian names of chemical elements I find particularly fascinating.

I would like to ask about this particular one, element 117. Here it figures as "tenesins". Is this Latvian naming final and official? Is there any reference to which organization coined this domestication? Was it a Latvian IUPAC national organization? I am asking because the English name "Tennessine" was a very curious case in many languages, and I would love to know the story in Latvian.

The recommendation of IUPAC was to domesticate this name analogously to how "Astatine" was previously domesticated in that particular language. The Latvian word "tenesins" does not follow this pattern. Astatine was taken into Latvian by removing the suffix -ine, and replacing it with -s, giving Astats. The same procedure worked for Iodine->Iods, Bromine->Broms, right? But now with "Tennessine" the word keeps the artifact "in", making the name tenesins. Why not Tennessine->Tenes?

The Germans domesticated the name as Tenness, the French as Tennesse (the same pronunciation), they did not keep the "in", as it comes from the typically English suffix -ine. I would be very curious to follow what was the story behind settling this name in Latvian and why Latvians kept the "in". And is it actually settled, or is "tenesins" just a hypothesis at the moment? Thanks in advance for any information.--RomyShredder (diskusija) 2017. gada 23. jūnijs, plkst. 15.31 (EEST)

Official reference --ScAvenger (diskusija) 2017. gada 24. jūnijs, plkst. 09.01 (EEST)

Many thanks @ScAvenger: This looks very much official and final, although there isn't much explanation about how they arrived to the conclusions. It seems like these were linguists rather than chemists, I am not sure if they were aware of the IUPAC recommendation to follow the example of Astatine. I guess I will have to get in touch with the people subscribed under this decision to ask what options they considered, any whether there was some specific reason why "tenes" was discarded. And also I will try asking the Latvian national organization of IUPAC, how the issue is seen there. I would love to know more details about this story, thanks for pointing me in this direction, it was very helpful.--RomyShredder (diskusija) 2017. gada 24. jūnijs, plkst. 11.24 (EEST)