4 ms·

Okay, I'm curious - when was this? I mean, modern nomenclature nominally started in 1892 at the Congress of Geneva, with changes and additions in 1930 that gen

by dalke 4y ago

Okay, I'm curious - when was this? I mean, modern nomenclature nominally started in 1892 at the Congress of Geneva, with changes and additions in 1930 that generally reflecting practices already in use by then. But I don't think you're 100+ years old. My guess is you're talking about the 1960s, when the name "IUPAC" started replacing the older name "Geneva". This guess comes from reading Eugene Garfield's 1961 PhD thesis on using linguistic methods to allow machine conversion of nomenclature to molecular weight says: > All students of elementary organic chemistry are still taught the “Geneva” system though some teachers may now call it the I. U. P. A. C. system. Quoted pages 450-451 of http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v7p441y1984.pdf http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v7p441y1984.pdf

jleyank 4y ago
Prof was an older gentleman who, strangely enough, wrote the book we were using. He felt, for whatever reason, that the common name for compounds was the way to go. So it was dead memorization w/o any systematization. Yeah, some IUPAC but not enough to make a difference. 75-76. It's all memorization to me. NMR groups show up at particular bands. Certain features suggest certain groups. How the %&!@$! coupling occurs. I hate memorization. I remember what I need, but not as the principal task.
- dalke 4y ago
  May I suggest that you misinterpreted his course as being reflective of the general state of chemistry nomenclature pedagogy in the 1970s? IUPAC was solidly in place long before then. That of course doesn't mean trivial names weren't - and aren't! - still widely in use and thus require memorization, but only that "IUPAC naming was just appearing" doesn't seem to be correct as a general description of the time.
  - jleyank 4y ago
    I know it was in place, but my ass was in his orgo classes at the time and as a newbie my perspective was limited. Perhaps the goal was to push harder on weed out, perhaps he was just determinedly old fashioned. Perhaps he hated teaching second year uni classes. As it was a research heavy uni, I can’t rule out the latter as I reused my qm notes from first year in my p-chem courses verbatim. And there is no inherent obviousness for iupac. Merely that it’s pile-o-memorization was more systematic. It’s just the nature of the subject as compared to other areas of chemistry and physics. Probably better than botany I guess, but I disliked biology.

by dalke 4y ago

jleyank 4y ago

Prof was an older gentleman who, strangely enough, wrote the book we were using. He felt, for whatever reason, that the common name for compounds was the way to go. So it was dead memorization w/o any systematization. Yeah, some IUPAC but not enough to make a difference. 75-76. It's all memorization to me. NMR groups show up at particular bands. Certain features suggest certain groups. How the %&!@$! coupling occurs. I hate memorization. I remember what I need, but not as the principal task.

dalke 4y ago
May I suggest that you misinterpreted his course as being reflective of the general state of chemistry nomenclature pedagogy in the 1970s? IUPAC was solidly in place long before then. That of course doesn't mean trivial names weren't - and aren't! - still widely in use and thus require memorization, but only that "IUPAC naming was just appearing" doesn't seem to be correct as a general description of the time.
- jleyank 4y ago
  I know it was in place, but my ass was in his orgo classes at the time and as a newbie my perspective was limited. Perhaps the goal was to push harder on weed out, perhaps he was just determinedly old fashioned. Perhaps he hated teaching second year uni classes. As it was a research heavy uni, I can’t rule out the latter as I reused my qm notes from first year in my p-chem courses verbatim. And there is no inherent obviousness for iupac. Merely that it’s pile-o-memorization was more systematic. It’s just the nature of the subject as compared to other areas of chemistry and physics. Probably better than botany I guess, but I disliked biology.