hmm... i have a hard time beliving thise could be a word.. Any proof on thise?? /Jan 4. Januar 2003
Trust me it exists.
I know the word exists...but I also have a question. This word is supposed to be 1913 letters long. According to spell check, it's missing 4! Does anyone know the correct spelling?
I thought you guys hated to have to scroll horizontally... :-) Polyglot 05:36 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
It is not spelt wrong it has 1909 letters, not 1913. I have double and tripple checked it myself. - fonzy
I'll ask here the same thing - what does this mean and what's the name of the "language" used? Webkid 19:19, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- From a brief web search, it appears that tryptophan synthesase (the short name) is an enzyme present in some organisms that produces tryptophan from indoleglycerol phosphate and serine. Ortonmc 19:47, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- And I'd call the language "English technical jargon". Ortonmc
I think this entry is inappropriate. This is a name obtained by enumerating the amino acids that the protein is made up of, and you can write out the name for *any* protein like this (and it'll be valid); but obviously no one does. If this were to be considered an English word, there are literally infinitely many such names out there that no one uses yet deserves to be incorporated. So I think this entry should be deleted. - Jun
- I agree that the whole excercise is somewhat silly, but there are a few of these monstrous words that are repeatedly cited as "the longest word in the English language", generally because they are mentioned in some organic chemistry reference somewhere. One can argue (though I personally prefer not to) that while there are infinitely many possible monster words of this sort, there are only finetely many appearing in published works (and for that matter a still finite, though staggeringly large number found in nature.)
- Of course, by that logic every such monster word in publication should have its own dictionary entry, which is why I personally find the exercise silly. -dmh 05:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
- This seems like a question for RFV, no? —RuakhTALK 19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think so.—msh210℠ 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Nobody would seriously use this in writing. It seems to be the result of some kind of automated process for producing "words" from chemical formulae, which might work for shorter ones but is useless here. Equinox 22:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or RFV if necessary. The entry predates the current CFI, which it clearly cannot pass; the very idea of this being used "in context to convey meaning" is absurd. We have not yet had the Big Discussion about chemical nomenclature, but I can't imagine those issues being resolved in a way that makes entries like this acceptable. -- Visviva 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Nobody uses such names other than for very short peptides. SemperBlotto 08:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Παρατηρητής 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It has wormed its way into only 2 other sites ; www.haikudojo.com and allwords.com, the latter giving what seems to be an almost tongue-in-cheek Italian translation. Anyway, can someone tell me what the fuck is going on here:
The following appeared when I tried to go to google books results for this ridiculous thing
- Bad Request
- Your client has issued a malformed or illegal request. 50 Xylophone Players talk 12:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted with an "RFV" summary.—msh210℠ 18:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)