Hacker News Reader

Comment by dekhn | Hacker News Reader

This is simply technically incorrect as many people are pointing out to you. There is a named molecule called "amphetamine" short for alpha-methylphenethylamine, it has a unique IUPAC name ((RS)-1-phenylpropan-2-amine).

Methamphetamine is a derivative in the class of amphetamines (amphetamines being the family that was originally established by amphetamine). I know that's confusing. But, it has its own chemical structure, N-methylamphetamine, which is chemically distinct (yet extremely similar).

If your point is 'meth is an amphetamine', that's fine but it doesn't strengthen your arguments.

View on HN

My only argument is that it’s reasonable for the GP to say that meth is amphetamine, even if it’s grammatically more correct to say an amphetamine.

It’s basically bullshit to dismiss what they were saying on the basis of this pedantry.

Amphetamine is a structural class.

It’s also clearly true that people not versed in chemistry associate meth with amphetamine.

What’s ‘technically’ correct to a chemist really isn’t relevant to this debate.

We wouldn’t generally argue that it’s incorrect to say that champagne is wine, even though it’s more technically accurate to say that champagne is a wine.

In the case of amphetamine, we feel the need to make the distinction more strongly because the word has two meanings.

This is only true for those of use who are aware of the presence of both meanings.

Those who think of amphetamine as a class and don’t distinguish it from the substance are not wrong. They are just less precise.

It's not a problem with grammar when the "incorrect" grammar changes the whole meaning of something. No one would be jumping on the comment if it had said, "meth is a amphetamine," which has the same meaning despite the incorrect grammar. Removing the "an" completely changes the meaning.

This should be clear?

It only completely changes the meaning for someone technically versed. Most people are not.

This should be clear?

A lot of people are going to think of meth when they see the word amphetamine. Likely most people.

The relevancy to the debate is established by the meaning of the word. Which is a technical issue. Leaving the definition of a precise term to the whims of layman results in that we can't any longer say if we are talking about the same things.

Look no further then to this very thread.

There is a technical definition and there are lay understandings.

This has always been true. Wouldn’t you say?

True.

The end result is that the merge of the two ends up in the dictionary. Perhaps it's time to update the definitions but I doubt that 'amphetamine' will be defined as slang for 'meth' when in fact 'meth' is slang or short for 'methamphetamine'.

Yeah - I’m not expecting it to end up as slang.

Just that as a lay term people think of meth as amphetamine in the way that people think of champagne as wine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com