Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:CO₂. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:CO₂, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:CO₂ in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:CO₂ you have here. The definition of the word Talk:CO₂ will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:CO₂, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
English
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I disagree. We often say "CO2" as an abbreviation of carbon dioxide. I don't think people usually pronounce NaCl "Na-kl", but sodium chloride. Also, with H2O I was surprised to see no English section - maybe it can be defined as {{humorous}} ] --Cova (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
When I have heard anyone pronounce NaCl they have said the four letters N-A-C-L. If someone "pronounces" H2O as water they are clearly not pronouncing that word but their substituted local/national word, having mapped the translingual term to that local one first. Equinox◑14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Either way, we're not going to lose any information. As long as the page says this is the chemical formula for carbon dioxide, I'll be happy --Cova (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Deletion debate
Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments11 people in discussion
This is a translingual term, which means it is used in multiple languages, including English. So either we delete the English section or create a section for half the world’s languages. — Ungoliant(Falai)19:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if it actually merits inclusion as a translingual term, because it's essentially SoP in chemistry terms. On the other hand it is idiomatic outside of chemistry. So I think it can be includable if we can show idiomatic uses of the word outside of a chemical context. —CodeCat19:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's possible to include a term both as translingual and as English or other languages: some information may differ between languages, such as pronunciation, gender, homophones, anagrams, usage notes, synonyms, antonyms, derived terms, citations, references... But, of course, sections should be created only when they provide useful information, and nobody will be able to create 3000 languages sections with useful information in this page. Lmaltier (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, you could argue it's a word. Also the chemical formula doesn't tell you anything about its properties. I believe the name "carbon dioxide" can be worked out from the formula. The Translingual should probably stay, I don't care about the English. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think the translingual section should go because the only truly translingual sense is the one in chemistry, but in chemistry it is sum of parts. (And yes I think the same for all other chemical formulas) I think the English section should be kept, though, because it is idiomatic in English and frequently used outside chemistry. —CodeCat13:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Keep. You say CO₂ emission (cee-o-two emission) rather than carbon dioxide emission, CO₂ market (cee-o-two market) rather than carbon dioxide market. Clearly CO₂ is an attested word phonologically distinct from carbon dioxide. It may or may not be the case of H₂ and H₂O. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm on the fence about what to do with this entry, but I have two comments:
First, regarding Wikitiki's comment that this should be CO2, "the precedent here being cases like 3rd": is that referring to the fact that entry isn't "3ʳᵈ"? That's because ʳ and ᵈ are Unicode modifier letters, Unicode explicitly proscribes the use of them as ersatz superscript, and Wiktionarians decided to obey that proscription. In contrast, ₂ was encoded for use in chemical formulae. I don't necessarily oppose moving this entry to CO2—more recent documents seem to suggest Unicode thinks it's OK to use regular 2, now, and we have been known to disuse Unicode characters before, e.g. some entries use I and/or the uppercase palochka in places the lowercase palochka would be more technically correct—but I don't think "3rd" is a precedent. (Whether the entry is at CO2 or CO₂, we should continue what AFAICT we've always done for chemical formulae, which is redirect whichever title isn't used to the one that is used.)
Second, regarding Takasugi Shinji's comment: in English (and other languages), all chemical formulae are regularly read aloud as letters. Because non-chemists can't always call to mind what various chemical symbols and especially what the various strings of symbols stand for, it's probably even more common to read more obscure chemical formulae aloud as letters than the more 'famous' ones which have arguably entered the lexicon to a greater extent. For example, if asked what "H2O" is, most people can tell it's "water", but if given and asked to read aloud the phrase "selectivity to C4H6 was poorer", I expect far more people will say "selectivity to cee four aitch six was poorer" than will know to say "selectivity to buta one three diene was poorer". That people say "cee oh two market" does not indicate anything linguistic about CO2 that can't be said of any other chemical. - -sche(discuss)17:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
My point is not that chemical formulae are read as letters but that CO₂ (cee-o-two) has already entered English vocabulary while H₂ (eitch-two) probably hasn’t. You say quite naturally CO₂ gas (cee-o-two gas) instead of carbon dioxide gas but not H₂ gas (eitch-two gas) instead of hydrogen gas in a non-chemical context. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
