Posted by Chad Orzel on December 6, 2010 I’m going to be at a media training session for most of the day. I had hoped to have a long and silly post about physics to schedule today, but, well, that didn’t happen. So here’s a silly poll to pass the time.
We normally deal in macroscopic quantities of this one, so quantum superpositions of answers are right out.
“Loom-num” is all you need to say.
I voted for 5, but after having thoroughly considered my own pronunciation of it I think I have to revise that and say 4. I originally thought I pronounced it like ['a lʊ ˌmi: ni ̝ɑm] (AH-lu-mii-ni-um), which has 5 syllables, and I probably would if I said it out very slowly and carefully to emphasize each syllable. But I think the last two syllables actually merge in normal speech so that it becomes ['a lʊ ˌmi: ɲ ̝ɑm] (AH-lu-mii-njum). I am a little uncertain about the precise details of the transcription, that last vowel sound in particular, but otherwise I think that’s how I pronounce it.
I am heavily influenced by my native tongue in this particular case, I fear.
The history of its spelling and pronunciation is actually fairly interesting. The confusion lies with its discoverer, who, if I recall, was inconsistent. Google it.
In Swedish 5, in English 4, in other lingos not.
This immoral poll is deeply offensive to my traditional Earth, Air, Fire, and Water beliefs.
Why, five, most certainly! In Australian, at least. In American, it’s four. For some reason, the spelling is different between the two of us – I use “Aluminium”, Al-u-mi-ni-um. All of my American friends, without fail, use “Aluminum”, pronounced Al-u-mi-num.
In Swedish 5, in English 4, in other lingos not.
Wrong! In English 5.
In Swedish dunno. But be clear about which English: American English spells Al “Aluminum” therefore 4 syllables, but the original UK English spells it “Aluminium” whcich is 5 syllables and no, the last two do not merge into one in normal speech. The emphasis in UKE on “min” does not allow it.
Well done Thony and Jolyon. In English it is indeed, for some reason in American English it’s 4. Maybe they print the second ‘i’ too small to see it. Or maybe they’re too lazy. Or perhaps the whole ‘American obesity’ thing is just as big as they make out in the media and by the time they get to the end they’re too tired to puff out any further syllables. Whatever, they’re wrong.
Oh, and stop forgetting the ‘u’ in words like ‘colour’!
It depends on which English-speaking country you’re in. Americans need four syllables to say it. But if you are in some strange place where they think color is spelled with a U, then one of the quaint local customs is that you need five syllables. That’s because somebody in England insisted that chemical elements should end in -ium, rather than the proper combining form -um. Heli- (“sun”) + -um = helium, bary- (“heavy”) + -um = barium, so why not alumin- (from alumina, Al_2O_3) + -um to form aluminum? It’s just a coincidence that so many combining prefixes end in an I sound.
I think it’s really pronounced in 5 syllables, spelled “aluminium.” We Americans shortened it to “aluminum” and pronounce it as such, to a point where my automatic spell checker tells me aluminium is wrong and aluminum is right.
Also when I tried saying it as “aluminium” for a while people looked at me like I was an idiot.
On the other hand, I was walking around saying, “aluminium,” so that may have been part of it.
the original UK English spells it “Aluminium”
The word didn’t exist until the UK and US were separate countries, so it’s a bit facetious to act as if this was some ancient term that was corrupted by foolish Americans. Wikipedia tells me that Sir Humphrey Davy coined the name “aluminum” and others decided it should end in “-ium” to better accord with all the other elements ending in “-ium”. Both were in use for a while and a series of historical accidents led to different choices being preferred in different places.
@13: original UK English. No comment as to the originality of “Aluminium”. But there’s a little more details at :
http://chemistry.about.com/od/elementfacts/a/aluminum.htm
“Aluminium was also the spelling in the U.S. until 1925, when the American Chemical Society officially decided to use the name aluminum instead.”
@14: so did the inhabitants of Molly-be-Damned. rent it for a good laugh if you haven’t already seen it. “The Brothers O’Toole”.
There’s metals that end in -ium. and those that dont. I dont get my metaphorical jammies in a twist about that.
But Alumin(i)um is the only one that doesn’t pick a side. Maybe it sits teasingly astride a fence trying to get us humans to draft nerdy polls, which lead to discussions on pronunciations, and then to comments on linguistic proclivities, then to misguided accusations of superiority and then to war. Its Evil I tell you. Evil.
Or it’s just a homey little fella who, if he could speak would say “you can call me Al”
I guess we will never know.
It’s one. And I’ll call you Betty.
I know it’s supposed to be 5. I use 4. I’m lazy.
Certain Europeans , adrift in the decadence and dissipation of their decaying culture, spell it with five syllables in a typically ostentatious display of their orthographical profligacy and superfluity, and pronounce it accordingly, with the singular affectation of an effete accent on the third syllable.
Honest, red-blooded Americans are naturally inclined to an efficient, unprepossessing four syllables with a manly yet restrained accent on the second.
Here in Poland chemists have dispensed with the -/i/um suffixes and simply call the elements things like hel, gal, potas and so on (which makes elements 39, 68 and 76 look positively bizarre; itr, erb and osm). However, the “older” elements have local forms, and hence element 13 is glin -> 1 syllable.
You've read the blog, now try the books:
How to Teach Relativity to Your Dog is published by Basic Books. "“Unlike quantum physics, which remains bizarre even to experts, much of relativity makes sense. Thus, Einstein’s special relativity merely states that the laws of physics and the speed of light are identical for all observers in smooth motion. This sounds trivial but leads to weird if delightfully comprehensible phenomena, provided someone like Orzel delivers a clear explanation of why.” --Kirkus Reviews "Bravo to both man and dog." The New York Times.
How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is published by Scribner. "It's hard to imagine a better way for the mathematically and scientifically challenged, in particular, to grasp basic quantum physics." -- Booklist "Chad Orzel's How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is an absolutely delightful book on many axes: first, its subject matter, quantum physics, is arguably the most mind-bending scientific subject we have; second, the device of the book -- a quantum physicist, Orzel, explains quantum physics to Emmy, his cheeky German shepherd -- is a hoot, and has the singular advantage of making the mind-bending a little less traumatic when the going gets tough (quantum physics has a certain irreducible complexity that precludes an easy understanding of its implications); finally, third, it is extremely well-written, combining a scientist's rigor and accuracy with a natural raconteur's storytelling skill." -- BoingBoing
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 7, 2010
December 7, 2010
December 7, 2010
December 8, 2010
December 13, 2010
