Naming different formulas. Where is the logic in it? After comparing many many names, it seems completly random if they add 'id' at the end, or when they add "tri" in the middle (when there is 3 of something), and sometimes they ignore the numbers alltogether, such as "Sodium sulfate" which is Na2SO4.

Please enlighten me :)

Question

Naming different formulas. Where is the logic in it? After comparing many many names, it seems completly random if they add 'id' at the end, or when they add "tri" in the middle (when there is 3 of something), and sometimes they ignore the numbers alltogether, such as "Sodium sulfate" which is Na2SO4. 

Please enlighten me :)

vincent-lyon.fr · Answer

To begin with, suffix -ide holds for monatomic anions:

fluor-ide ion  $F^-$
chlor-ide ion  $Cl^-$
brom-ide ion  $I^-$
iod-ide ion  $F^-$

ox-ide ion  $O^{\,2-}$
sulf-ide ion  $S^{\,2-}$

hydr-ide ion   $H^-$


Whereas monatomic cations keep the name of the element unchanged.
You will add the number of positive charges (in Roman numerals) if there is more than one possible cation.

sodium ion   $Na^+$
calcium ion   $Ca^{\,2+}$

iron (II) ion   $Fe^{\,2+}$
iron (III) ion  $Fe^{\,3+}$

zinc ion    $Zn^{\,2+}$

I'll get back to you later.

anonymous · Answer

I will have to look more into it to understand it :)

anonymous · Answer

My question is still unanswered, so if anyone got more information regarding this, it would be much appreciated.

accessdenied · Answer

I will check back later to do more research, but I can tell you the culprit of any craziness is a group known as IUPAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_nomenclature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAC_nomenclature_of_inorganic_chemistry_2005#Summary There might be something here to help. If you can't find anything, I'll be back after school to go over this in more detail because I am curious as well. My best conjecture is that naming with prefixes indicates covalent bonding and no prefixes indicates ionic bonds. I don't know if/think that's the whole case. though So maybe someone else can help or I will see what I find after school!

anonymous · Answer

Hmm... I will have to do some more reading upon covalent bonding, and ionic bonds. :)

kainui · Answer

Yeah, you gotta understand that chemistry has been going on for centuries before anyone ever knew that deep down it was all just a bunch of balls. Because of this, a lot of common names that were in use are still in use today and to the common person who doesn't study chemistry these will always persist. Even if they use IUPAC naming, they'll still try to change something very specific sounding like TriNitro Toluene into the more understandable and pronounceable TNT.

That being said, there still are some rules out there to follow. Several naming conventions apply more specifically to acid and bases along with oxidation and reduction reactions. When it comes to something like H2SO4 this represents Sulfuric Acid. When you deprotonate  an acid the name turns into Sulfate ions. Similar, another name for vinegar is acetic acid and when you react it with baking soda you'll get acetate ions since that is just the same structure without its hydrogen anymore. (proton=hydrogen).

Ok so maybe this doesn't completely answer your question, but to answer your question fully you'd just be better off taking more chemistry courses and just realize that chemistry is just a science like everything else and is a way for us to figure things out. The way it developed has been sloppy at times and we're still working on making it look nicer but it's really not the priority since what chemists are more concerned with are properties of compounds and research. Names are fairly arbitrary human inventions for things that will exist regardless of what we call them.

anonymous · Answer

I find it ridiculous that we need to be able to "name" formulas such as H2SO4. I feel people should be learning more important chemistry than being able to give them pretty names. After all, it is properties of compounds and research is way more important. 

Thanks to all involved!

accessdenied · Answer

The names follow a fairly defined schema based only on the molecule's qualities.  For some examples:
  You only use the -ide ending when you have a monatomic anion in the compound.  NaCl = Sodium Chlor[ide].  CaO = Calcium Ox[ide].  KCl = Potassium Chlor[ide].
   When the ending ion is polyatomic, you use whichever prefix associates with the polyatomic anion.  Sulfates, Carbonates, Nitrite...

   We only use prefixes in covalently bonded compounds, like two of the nonmetals bonded together.  NO 2 is nitrogen dioxide.  N2O4 is dinitrogen tetroxide.  OF 2 is oxygen difluoride.
   Why not use it for ionicly bonded compounds?.  Ionic bonds' formulas can be quickly balanced by crossing the charges.  For your Na2 SO4 example, Na +  and  SO4  (2-) are quickly crossed.

  You probably won't cover them for a while, but organic compounds' names actually give more information than the chemical formula.  They are designed so that you can build the actual structure from the name itself.  You could then catalog the name as it is unique to that structure.

Not to mention, naming of compounds is learned fairly early in Chemistry, and once you learn the rules there are not many specific exceptions.

kainui · Answer

@Ivanskodje it's not ridiculous. If I just say "it's a blue thing" well that's great that we know that the thing is blue, but what is that thing you're talking about? We have to give them names. Why? Because H2SO4 could be anything. Does it look like this: |dw:1400100539794:dw| Which H2SO4 are we talking about?