FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Jesse Fisher]

Peter,

The spelling "barytes" (pronounced bare-RITE-ease) is used in the UK to denote commercial baryte ore, just as "fluorspar" is used for commercially extracted fluorite.

An interesting aside to the spelling issue is that in two import books published last year on British mineralogy (Minerals of Britian and Ireland by Andy Tindle, and Minerals of Northern England by Symes and Young) the authors, who are all British academic mineralogists use the "American" spelling. Anarchy, indeed!

[keldjarn]

I think the respect for IMA in relation to the correct spelling of mineral names is totally overrated. In my view a mineral species is defined by the chemical composition and the structure of the compound as presented in the published type description and as accepted by the IMA (with possible later published data to refine or modify). It is this part of the IIMA work of standardisation that really has to be subject to peer review by the international scientific community and to stand the test of the time. Spelling of mineral names or even naming of minerals are changing all the time (remember the heated discussions about Fluorapatite or Apatite-CaF and similar minerals). It is quite telling that these changes were introduced without an independent peer review process as would have been the case for the publication of new mineral descriptions in a scientific journal..
Other languages also modify their naming of minerals according to their own linguistic structure - but luckily there are no national modifications of the chemical formula or structure ! As long as we speak different languages we have to live with what somebody may consider a "linguistic anarchy" in the spelling of mineral names. The fact that most scientific papers and websites use one or another version of the English language may be a transient periode in this changing world. In the near future we may as well adjust to the spelling of mineral names in Mandarin.
Knut

[Jordi Fabre]

Alfredo wrote:
"when I looked for the "edit" button to correct it, I find my edit button has disappeared. Why have we lost the ability to edit our own posts?"

We got troubles on the past with people editing its own messages after a while adding publicity on it or deleting photos without our knowledge, so we decided to avoid this ability. Alfredo, you can edit your own messages in the forum moderated for you: "Questions about mineral specimens" but not in other forum, and as this post is placed in the forum " Minerals and Mineralogy" you can't edit it. I'm sorry.

Jordi

[Jordi Fabre]

To simplify my life I use the IMA accepted names, and I just change the last letter of the mineral name "e" by an "a". This change is officially accepted by the IMA for Spanish language. The problem is that this create a lot of very strange names in Spanish language like for example: "Phosphophyllita" instead the more usual: "Fosfofilita".

We discussed a lot about this in the Spanish Forum and many people don't be happy with my way to nominate the minerals in Spanish language, but at least everybody can use a single book: the Fleischer's Glossary, and find there every mineral. If I write properly in Spanish language "Fosfofilita" people just don't will find it in the Fleischer because they will search in the "F" letter and it is listed by the "P". As in Spanish language it don't exist a Fleischer version or similar, this is the only way that I find to label my specimens in a way that result more or less comprehensible for both worlds, English and Spanish.

Jordi

[John S. White]

Amen Jordi, I strongly believe that your approach is the only rational one. The number of examples that are radically different, such as the one you cited, are relatively few and the Spanish, the Italians, the Portuguese, the Germans and the Russians, etc., have all managed to figure out what the English forms are. It makes great sense to have a standardized form for every mineral name that is recognized internationally, and Fleischer's Glossary is the best available listing in book form. Once again I must point out that mindat.org is also excellent in this capacity.

[keldjarn]

John,
"rationality" is also a question of perspective and context. I see no problem in having a standardised IMA-list of mineral names and spelling to be used in English texts in i.e. scientific journals. But Jordi`s simplistic approach to the conversion of mineral names to Spanish creates new problems. Every language has a scientific (linguistic) basis for the creating, spelling and pronounciation of words - also when imported from other languages i.e. technical, scientific or geographical names. In many cases common rules may exist i.e. the addition of "-itt" instead of "-ite" in mineral names in Norwegian. But every language will have exceptions from the "rules" as a result of either linguistic or historical traditions. The incorporation and active use of new technical and scientific words in a way that is compatible with the linguistic structure of the language is also a relevant issue of maybe greater importance than the need for a strictly defined similarity in the spelling of mineral names in a small mineral-oriented community. In many countries (i.e. Norway) there exist more or less official lists with the correct spelling in Norwegian of names of minerals, animals, diseases etc. when used in a Norwegian text.
Also a number of EU Commission Directives and National laws require instructions for use with numerous types of products in the national language where a transformation also of chemical names, mineral names and other "scientifically standardised" names to the correct form compatible with the language in use may be of importance to avoid misunderstandings. It can be of vital importance that the spelling also results in a pronounciation of the name or word in a way which is easy to recognize.
A simple example to illustrate the complexities involved. The periodic table of elements and the name of the elements have an established international standardisation. The element K is Kalium and there should be many good reasons for abolishing the use of "Potassium" in English. But a very strong linguistic traditon would probably jeopardize many initensive care patients if doctors started prescribing intravenous "Kalium" because it would easily be confused with "Calcium" - a mistake that could kill the patient.

I am personally a strong supporter of international standardisation and have been engaged in such activities in other areas than mineralogy. But I also recognize the complexity of the issues involved especially related to the need also for other languages than English to evolve and adobt new words into the language based on its own linguistic traditions.

Knut

[alfredo]

I find myself agreeing with Knut that the important part of mineralogy as a science is the structure and chemistry; the naming part is of secondary importance (and perhaps more of a sociological than a mineralogical phenomenon). There is far too much fear that variance in names will "confuse the beginners" - I have more faith in the intelligence of "beginners" - they'll quickly learn, just like we did, that phosphophyllite and fosfofilita, and barytes and Baryte, are exactly the same species.

And Jordi, you need to have more confidence in the intelligence of Spanish collectors! There is no need to slavishly adhere to english spellings in the spanish language. Other languages don't do that, so why spanish? Potassichastingsite is Kaliumhastingsit in german, and karihesuchingususenseki in japanese, and that situation doesn't seem to cause them any problems whatsoever.

Germans have the Lapis species list in german (which I think is updated more often than Fleischers). If such a list does not exist in spanish yet, perhaps Fabre Minerals should publish one. I'm sure the spanish-speaking market is large enough to make such a venture economically viable. Spain supports at least two mineral journals, so there must be enough commercial demand for a published species list. If publishing it on paper is not economically viable, how about an online version? ...on the Fabre website, if no one else wants to do it ;-))

[John S. White]

I am not certain of this but I suspect that the majority of Jordi's customers are not Spanish, therefore it seems to me to make sense to standardize one's labels so that multiple labels are not required. By default, English appears to have become the universal language. We who speak it did not make tht choice, it just happened.

[keldjarn]

In relation to private mineral collections and dealers` labels, I see no problem if one chooses to use English. The problem I have encountered in other scientific areas ( nomenclature in biochemistry and biotechnology) is that if professionals in the field decide to use only English terminology, the terminology in national languages will be created by lawyers and bureaucrats - which can be very unfortunate ! And there is a need also for using mineral names in many other contexts than can be imagined by mineralogists. And the view that English is an "universal language" is a true misconception shared only by English speaking people and a small professional elite working in an environment where English is widely used. You will never see national laws and regulations i.e. on asbestos minerals without the need to define these substances and name them in a text in the native language. The same is the case for the regulation, documentation, statistics etc of mining and trade in mineral raw materials. In a number of related scientific areas - i.e. environmental medicine, I have experienced great problems relating exposure to mineral hazards to the actual minerals in question when the articles or reports have been written by non-mineralogists. This is especially true when other languages than English have been used. I think the mineral community and mineralogists have a responsibility to ensure that sensible naming of minerals are in place in their respective languages - and this is not only a question of English. Therefore a list of recommended or approved mineral names to be used in Spanish should be available - especially for non-mineralogists as is the case in many other languages i.e. Norwegian, German, Russian etc.
Knut

[Tracy]

Forgive the slight digression, but - Knut, do you practice environmental medicine? And in your previous two postings are you making references to the regulatory requirements of REACH/GHS? If so, please email me at balagan29atyahoodotcom, I'd love to know more about what you do (I'm an occupational toxicologist).

I was going to post yesterday about how initiatives are in place to globally harmonize hazard classification and labeling of chemicals, as well as drug names (aspirin is no longer aspirin but instead it is "ASA," epinephrine if I remember right is to be used in place of adrenaline from now on). Who's to say that a global harmonization system for minerals won't follow suit? It might be a while coming, but I can easily envision a time when it finally does arrive (or at least where everybody starts arguing over which naming system should be adopted). Personally I think "Baryte" vs "baryte" is a cosmetic issue just like sulfur vs sulphur, easily resolved if not having been so heavily ingrained culturally. I'm not advocating English, either British or Ameican as the "best" language to use, but if has such universal popularity/familiarity...? This might be a place to start.

- Tracy

[chris]

Hi Jordi,

If you are worried with translations, why don't you put a list on your site with the IMA "English" name and the Spanish regular one ?

I quickly searched the net for such list but found nothing. Might worth a try ?

Christophe

[Jordi Fabre]

Currently I'm in a place where I have a very bad connection and not too much free time. Monday I will be back to this topic.

Jordi

[alfredo]

I agree with Knut again, that although english is undoubtedly the most important language in science, the actual extent of its dominance is quite exaggerated in the minds of english speakers, for whom it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because they avoid venues where english is not used. I even think that in the amateur mineralogy field, for collectors, there is more published in german than in english!

Another example is Japan, a country engaged in an enormous number of high-tech mineralogical studies (they do afterall manufacture most of our microscopes and x-ray equipment), an active and very well educated amateur community, and unfortunately, because of the language barrier, little contact with the outside world - only a tiny percentage feel comfortable speaking english.

As for Jordi's business, I'm agree he must sell more to english speakers than to spanish speakers, and he must therefore of necessity have an english language website, but the argument was about how he writes mineral names in spanish, not about the names he writes in english. Writing "spanish" mineral names by copying Fleischers and just changing the final "e" to "a", like "phosphophyllita" or "pyrargyrita" is neither english nor spanish, but a weird hybrid that will please nobody.

[Carles Millan]

Alfredo,

I always enjoy reading your posts. But right now I've been also reading for the second time the 'Biography' page at your website:
https://www.petrovrareminerals.com
(link normalized by FMF)
and I couldn't help laughing out loud. Great!

[Jordi Fabre]

Alfredo,

You are right, I'm using neither English nor Spanish, but a weird hybrid, but at least I use an "IMA accepted" hybrid. ;-)
I disagree that this will please nobody, I use this "trick" for long long time, and English speakers seems to accept this well and most Spanish speakers too.

Considering the fact that I have not the human ability to change the names of all my labels according if I assist to a Spanish or to an International Show, what I can do?.
I'm considering seriously to write all my labels just on English language to avoid troubles, but then I'm sure that the Spanish customers will complain.

Some suggestion?

Jordi