Talk:pentium

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request for verification[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.


Although this follows from deuterium and tritium, it doesn't seem to be used in the place of simply Hydrogen-5. Nadando 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added the source whence I got this, though, as you say, it doesn’t seem to have caught on like protium, deuterium, and tritium have; that said, it may be just about attestable with the aid of Google Groups Search. It’ll be difficult given the predominance of Pentium. FWIW, pentium doesn’t exactly follow from (deprecated template usage) protium, (deprecated template usage) deuterium, and (deprecated template usage) tritium — the latter are formed on Ancient Greek ordinal numbers (πρῶτος (prôtos, first), δεύτερος (deúteros, second), and τρίτος (trítos, third), respectively) + Latin -ium, whereas the former is formed from the Ancient Greek cardinal number πέντε (pénte, five) + Latin (deprecated template usage) -ium. Consistency calls for something like *pemptium (from the ordinal form of πέντε (pénte), viz. πέμπτος (pémptos, fifth)), but there’s an absolute dearth of use thereof (for example, google books:pemptium yields only gibberish, phantom hits, and ten scannos of Pompeium). What that source gives as the term for 41H — tetriumseems more promising (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. I didn't bother keeping the citation, as it was only a mention, but if anyone wants it on the citations page, let me know. —RuakhTALK 20:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]