Chains and rings

After hours spent looking in my books and searching the internet, I came to the conclusion that chemists talk about chains and rings without explaining what they mean. The only definition I found so far, viz. that of Gold Book, is specific for polymers and seems to be too complex to be used in general chemical nomenclature:

The whole or part of a macromolecule, an oligomer molecule or a block, comprising a linear or branched sequence of constitutional units between two boundary constitutional units, each of which may be either an end-group, a branch point or an otherwise-designated characteristic feature of the macromolecule.

(1)

On the other hand, general dictionary definitions of (chemical) chains are not precise enough. For example, Collins English Dictionary defines chain (chemistry) as

two or more atoms or groups bonded together so that the configuration of the resulting molecule, ion, or radical resembles a chain.

(2)

whereas Merriam-Webster says that it is

a number of atoms or chemical groups united like links in a chain.

(3)

So chain (chemistry) is like a chain. Is it?

Irregularity and suppletion

Now that we’ve established that all chemical names consist of content words and each content word includes at least one base, we can rephrase our original statement ix

9. New chemical names are formed by combining existing content morphemes with functional morphemes or adding new content morphemes

as

9. New chemical names are formed by combining existing bases with functional morphemes or adding new bases.

When we say “combining”, we mean that the parts of our construction set themselves are not changing. Right? In this way, the chemical name-building (out of standardised blocks, like names of atoms, groups, etc.) reflects the actual molecule-building (out of standard blocks, like atoms, groups, etc.).

On the other hand, if we agree that chemical names form part of a natural language, we also have to accept that sometimes they behave in not quite regular fashion. For example, we can figure out that the substituent group called ethenyl is derived from ethene because they share the base ‘ethen’. However, we cannot deduce in the similar fashion that phenyl group is derived from benzene. What’s going on here?