INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
March, 1927
New Words and Old
Finally Coward and Jones say: Jorissen’s failure to appreciate the experimental requisites in this type of work is further illustrated by the following quotation from his first paper: From Bunsen’s observations on the explosibility of hydrogen-oxygen mixtures a lower explosion limit of about 6.1 vol. per cent may be calculated. When we compare this limit with that for hydrogen-air mixtures as determined by J. Roszkowski, viz.: 9.5 vol. per cent, we note the considerable influence of nitrogen. For the proportion between the concentrations of hydrogen and oxygen has been increased from 6 1/93.9 t o 9.50/19.
The comparison between Bunsen’s observations on hydrogenoxygen mixtures with Roszkowski’s on hydrogen-air mixtures involves other variables, the explosion vessel and the means of ignition. It is unnecessary so to complicate matters, for Roszkowski himself made a direct comparison between the lower limit of hydrogen in air and in oxygen, finding them t o be 9.5 and 9.7 per cent, respectively.* * * Hence in comparable experiments the influence of nitrogen in this example is inconsiderable.
1 suppose t h a t Coward and Jones did not see t h a t I was comparing proportions. M y reasoning remains the same, whether I compare t h e proportions 6.1/93.9 and 9.5/19 or 9.7/90.3 and 9.5/19. In both cases the increase is considerable. I n addition to those already cited, I should like to refer those who are interested in this question t o my other papers on reaction regions.1s I* Rcc. trau. chim., 45, 162, 224,400, 633,849 (1926); Chem. N e w s , 133, 290 (1926); Trans. Furuday Soc., 22. 291 (1926).
THE UNIVERSITY LEIDEN,HOLLAND October 29, 1926
43 1
W. P.
JORISSEN
. . . .........
Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Mr. Jorissen’s commentary on our paper includes no denial of our conclusion t h a t he “has much overestimated the effect of small amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbons on the limits of inflammability of methane in air.” We agree with his explanations as to why our results differ so much from his. We pointed out in our paper wherein we find his experimental procedure inadequate to decide whether or not a given gaseous mixture will propagate flame-that is, inadequate t o determine limits of inflammability which, according to the titles of the papers criticized, was his object. There are wide ranges of noisily explosive mixtures which Jorissen has declared to be outside the limits of inflammability, because he did not succeed in inflaming them. H a d he used a sufficiently narrow tube, he would have found t h a t no gaseous mixture a t all was inflammable! As for the last point raised by Mr. Jorissen, surely his original statement (quoted and requoted) meant t h a t the great difference between the lower limit of hydrogen in air and in oxygen was due t o the great difference between the proportions of hydrogen and oxygen in the two cases. We showed that there was, in fact, very little difference between the limits. What interest remains, therefore, in the proportions of hydrogen and oxygen? PITTSBURGH EXPERIMENT STATION H. F. COWARD u. s. BUREAUO F MINES G. W. JONES PITTSBURGH, PA. December 29, 1926
Canada and the Twentieth Century-The Royal Bank of Canada, with head office in Montreal, has issued a well-illustrated book dealing with the natural resources, present status of industrial growth, and opportunities in a territory larger than the United States including Alaska, -but having less than ten per cent as large a population. The book, which presents both description and statistics in attractive form, gives special attention t o climate, agriculture, dairying, forest industries, mining, fisheries, manufacturing, and new industries. Power production is stressed, foreign trade discussed, and there are sections on the British Empire preference, tariff agreements, government and finance, taxes, and Canada as a field for investment.
Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: I n the January number of INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY,I have read with interest your derivation of certain new words which you propose as differentiating between the upper and lower strata of “substitutes.” Praiseworthy as is your effort in this connection, I cannot refrain from drawing your attention, first to the rairon d’ttre of such formations, and second t o the etymological processes here concerned. Thus, t3 be specific, the word “substitute” does not carry with it the idea of inferiority. I n fact, there are many cases where superiority is connoted by the term “substitute.” One purchases synthetic oil of wintergreen perfectly well aware t h a t he is obtaining a pure methyl salicylate, whereas he knows full well t h a t when he purchases natural oil of wintergreen he is obtaining a product of nature consisting for the most part of methyl salicylate but always carrying slight impurities. Many such examples may be cited, all of which are clearly indicative that the word “substitute” is not subject to as much criticism as your article would infer. Furthermore, from the standpoint of etymology we are not accustomed t o coining new words, of close significance t o >words already in use, by reverting to the elemental roots of these latter and hand-picking them, a s i t were, in order that, by addition of prefixes and suffixes to these roots, we may derive a new formation carrying a slightly differentiated meaning from the original compounded word. For example, the word “surgeon” is derived from x&p. hand, and ;pyov, work. Therefore, a surgeon is one who works with his hands and the term as such is used only in the medical profession. If now we might wish t o describe a particularly adroit surgeon who can work with his feet, we cannot call him a “pedurgeon” and expect to get away with it. For thus we would lose the significance of the compounded word already in use. We must therefore build up the new word from the compounded word already in use by adding proper prefixes or suffixes. Thus a surgeon adept with his feet should be called a “pedosurgeon.” I maintain, therefore, that the word “substitute” must remain exactly a s i t is. If you want t o devise a word that will carry with i t the idea of distinct superiority you can introduce the word “supersubstitute.” I n this connection I must say t h a t “equistitute” is foreign to the chemist’s mind. There is nothing that is exactly the same as anything else. Chemically, therefore, we cannot have “equistitutes.” Now t h a t you have introduced the subject of fine distinctions, may I ask you, through the pages of your highly valued journal, to emphasize the difference between “component ”and “constituent.” So many of our chemists never seem t o realize t h a t we are using a language replete with words and words with many fine shades of meaning. The word “component” refers only t o the parts of a whole which have been merely placed together. Thus, we have the “components” of petroleum: the various hydrocarbons, and nitrogen and sulfur compounds; but there are no such things as “constituents” of petroleum, There are, of course, “constituents” of hydrocarbons in petroleum: hydrogen and carbon; just as we may say t h a t hydrogen and oxygen are “constituents” of water. The roots of the word “constituent” mean “stand together” or “built in together” and, therefore, are characteristic of the elements as combined in the compound. When I hear anyone speaking of the “constituents” of coal and the “constituents” of steel I do not know what the man is talking about, and i t is my regular practice in all such cases, no matter how learned he may be, t o ask him just what he has in mind and, as a rule, I find t h a t he is very poorly informed on the etymology of chemical terms. Chemically, the word “constituent” refers to the
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
432
units of a compound; the word “component” refers to the units or parts of a mixture. The introduction, where necessary, of new words into a language is a function of civilization, or rather the forerunner of enlightenment. I n the order of this progress, however, i t is highly commendable t o emphasize those finer distinctions which will lead to a more careful choice of words already existent b u t of indiscriminate use. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL WASHINGTON, D. C. January 31, 1927
WILLIAMJ. HALE
More Substitutes for “Substitute” Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: The suggestion for a word replacing “substitute” is offered in a new word “synthecate” or “synthenate,” the euphony and proper ending or suffix being a matter for a n etymologist, which by definition would infer all t h a t “substitute” indicates except the concept of inferiority. This word by usage and definition could be symbolic, not for devices, b u t for materials which have been or could be superseded in the arts and sciences by materials t h a t have been literally synthesized, or by those materials t h a t have been made from new processes. 414 HELLERMAN ST. F. W. HARTZEL PHILADELPHIA, PA. January 23, 1927
............
Vol. 19, No. 3
word already in the language, if one can be found and adapted t o a new use, than i t is t o concoct one out of hand. So, I suggest “vicarium.” A “vicarius” is a person who acts in the place of another; by merely changing the gender t o neuter we have “vicarium” for a thing t h a t acts in place of another thing. The word has the advantage of suggesting neither inferiority nor superiority, but only function. WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS. February 7 , 1927
LAUNCELOT W. ANDREW’S
Standard Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Commercial Fats and Oils-Correction The following corrections should be made in this report [THIS 18, 1346 (1926)l:
JOURNAL,
Page 1351, column 1, line under Reichert-Meissl and Polenske Numbers should read: (A 0. A. C. Methods, Modified). Page 1351, column 2, last sentence, first paragraph under Index of Refraction should read: Determine the index of refraction with any standard instrument, reading oils and fats at 40’ C. Page 1352, column 2, Acetyl Value, last two lines under Method should read: S = saponification number before acetylization, S’ = saponification number after acetylization.
W. D. RICHARDSON, Chairman
Systematic Refining of Cracked Dis tillates-Correc t ion
Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: I n the January, 1927, number of INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING The arrow or equality sign in equation (3) on the bottom of CHEMISTRY you ask for a substitute for the word “substitute.” page ’734 in my article under this title, THISJOURNAL,18, 733 (1926), should be shifted to the right of the reactant and the May I suggest the word “permute”? I t s present meaning is plus sign added to conform t o the equations shown above, rather “interchange” than “substitution,” but it might also mean “exchange, commutation, or transposition.” It has almost the which are summed up to give the equation: meaning of our old English, north-country word “swap”-“Don’t R-S swap horses in midstream.” The word “permute” has the 2HzSO4(coned.)+ 1 2H20 SO2 PhSO4 following advantages: (1) I t s etymology is good; ( 2 ) it is short; R-S R-S (3) (3) i t may be used as noun or verb without any alteration; (4) JACQUE C. MORRSLL i t becomes a n adjective by adding “d.” Other advantages will probably occur to you. CHEMICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY HERBERTHENSTOCK Calendar of Meetings
.-’> +
SCHOOL GARDENS SHREWSBURY, ENGLAND February 1 , 1927
Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chem.istry: Procrastination won, and last month when I read your request for a word I did not put i t in writing. However, I feel aided and abetted after reading the suggestions in the February issue of INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY. With due consideration and thorough convictions as to its merits, I offer “parproduct.” Write this as you will, with a hyphen after “par” or as one word, i t still conveys to the greater percentage of people the prime idea of equality. It has no difficult syllables and may be easily and readily spoken. In cases where a little extra merit is desired to he impressed we might have “suparproduct.” THELILLYRESEARCH LABORATORIES A. LEE CALDWELL ELI LILLYAND C O W P A N Y INDIANAPOLIS, IND. February 8, 1927
............
Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Regarding the h u n t for a better word than “substitute” in certain cases, I would say a word. Firstly, i t is better t o use a
+
+
+
American Chemical Society-73rd Meeting, Richmond, Va., April 11 t o 16, 1927. 74th hleeting, Detroit, Mich., September 5 to 10, 1927. Midwest Regional Meeting-Chicago, Ill., May 27 and 28, 1927. National Colloid SymDivision of Colloid Chemistry-Fifth posium, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., June B 22 t o 24, 1927. Second National Symposium on Organic Chemistry-Columbus, Ohio, December 29 t o 31, 1927. American Electrochemical Society-Benjamin Franklin Hotel, Philadelphia, Pa., April 28 t o 30, 1927. Fall Meeting in the form of a n excursion through the Northwest, September 4 t o 20, 1927. American Institute of Chemical Engineers-Cleveland, Ohio, M a y 31 t o June 3, 1927. American Leather Chemists’ Association-Cincinnati, Ohio, June 15 t o 17, 1927. American Society for Testing Materials-Annual Meeting, French Lick, Ind., June 20 t o 24, 1927. Eleventh Annual Exposition of Chemical Industries-Grand Central Palace, New York, N. Y., September 26 t o October 1, 1927,
