Re: OT: is this real?
 

I never said that GTTACA was a word... quite the contrary. That is not what they are talking about when they mention the full length word for DNA. That is NOT any particular DNA strand. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And even if you do not like DNA, the word mentioned at the beginning of this thread must be a word if tetrachloride is a word, because they are exactly the same thing, the word-representation of a chemical. They convey exactly as much meaning as "dog," "mouse," "puke," etc. convey, that of a noun.

Re: OT: is this real?
 

besides, many words are made up of other words.

Re: OT: is this real?
 

i never claimed the word originating this thread was unwordly. just dna code and symbolic formulae.

Re: OT: is this real?
 

DNA code and symbolic forumlae are certainly not words... the fully extended name of DNA is though. It is not a symbolic formula, nor code of any sort.

Re: OT: is this real?
 

Hey Fyron... "The fully extended name of DNA" is deoxyribonucleic acid. Two words http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I think you're saying what the link posted previously was saying, that the specific DNA spoken of is human mitochondrial DNA, and it's fully extended "name" is the longest word of English. Correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption, and disregard the rest of this posting if the assumption is wrong.

I'm still not convinced however, that this is a true word, and not the coded sequence of a specific strand of human mitochondrial DNA. The main reasons are 1) nobody has produced the actual word, only a reference to it and it's approximate length, and 2) the approximate length, IIRC, would coincide with the number of base pairs in human mitochondrial DNA. I can't really think of any other way that a DNA strand would be referred to with a string of such length.

Re: OT: is this real?
 

You guys still arguing about this?

The first posted 'word' is not a real word for the simple reason that it has never been spoken. Most definations of a word have one thing in common. that it is a unit of speech or the written representation of that. 'Speech' being the key word here. Since I assume this 'word' has never ever been spoken it is not a word. (and even if someone did attempt to speak this word I serious doubt it would convey any meaning in spoken form)

Re: OT: is this real?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Unless, of course, you end up with a play written by Shakespeare. Happens to monkeys all the time.

Re: OT: is this real?
 

Words do not have to be spoken to be words. Written/typed words still count as words. And, that word most certainly conveys meaning. It conveys the same sort of meaning that "tetrachloride" conveys.

Re: OT: is this real?
 

They can come up with words as long as they want. They could synthesize bigger and bigger protein molecules or nucleic acid molecules, and I don't think there's a limit to how big a polymer that can be created.

Re: OT: is this real?
 

I can think of a way to further obfuscate this issue, but I think maybe I'm just going to leave it alone...aside from this #$R%%7! post.