The longest word in the world. 3 hours plus to say out loud.

[Hampus Andersson]

Sounds crazy but it´s the chemical word for titin a protein in our body.

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/11/20/titin.txt

 

[Alberto Casado]

Sounds crazy but it´s the chemical word for titin a protein in our body.

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/11/20/titin.txt

Well, if you are calling that a word, then it is not the longest. There are bigger proteins that you can name equally, or even worse, you can also recite a full chromosome, which encodes the proteins at 3 bases per aminoacid + stops + non-expressed sequences, probably several years talking.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Well, if you are calling that a word, then it is not the longest. There are bigger proteins that you can name equally, or even worse, you can also recite a full chromosome, which encodes the proteins at 3 bases per aminoacid + stops + non-expressed sequences, probably several years talking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_word_in_English

 

[Alberto Casado]

Well, check the dispute column.

I like much more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

However I was wrong that there are larger proteins than titin. Still my point with the DNA sequences is valid.

 

[Xosé Estrada]

Longest word is not "car" in German if you want to include all the equipment?

Carabsepstractioncontrolpowersteeringelectricwindowsflungen

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Well, check the dispute column.

Yea i read that, it did not say it was not a word so i posted it until they can decide.
Right now it does seem to be one.

 

[Senad Subasic]

People sometimes ask whether a DNA string can be considered as the longest English word, given that they can run to many thousands of letters. The answer is no: they're regarded as chemical names rather than genuine words in the sense of meaningful items of vocabulary. The same is true of the formal names of chemical compounds. These can be almost unlimited in length (for example, aminoheptafluorocyclotetraphosphonitrile, 40 letters) and many contain numerals, Roman and Greek letters, and other symbols, as well as ordinary letters. We don't tend to regard these terms as proper 'words'.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/what-is-the-longest-english-word

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Should have quoted that, someone might mistake it for being you.

It seems it depends on what you consider a word. Hence why it´s still there in Wiki and still talked about in that sense.

The answer to this question has been up for debate for some time. One of the reasons the English language is so rich and so flexible is that, by combining different roots and affixes (prefixes and suffixes), anyone can create a new word whose meaning can be understood by examining its various parts.

So, really, it depends on how you want to define word. Does it need to have appeared in a dictionary? Does it need to have appeared in more than one piece of literature? Does it need to be in standard usage?
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-305408,articleId-113603.html

Also seems Oxford Dictionairy is not without criticism either,

Despite its claim of authority[5] on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary has been criticised from various angles. It has become a target precisely because of its massiveness, its claims to authority, and above all its influence. In his review of the 1982 supplement, University of Oxford linguist Roy Harris writes that criticizing the OED is extremely difficult because "one is dealing not just with a dictionary but with a national institution", one that "has become, like the English monarchy, virtually immune from criticism in principle".[30]:935 Harris also criticises what he sees as the "black-and-white lexicography" of the Dictionary, by which he means its reliance upon printed language over spoken—and then only privileged forms of printing. He further notes that, while neologisms from respected "literary" authors such as Samuel Beckett and Virginia Woolfare included, usage of words in newspapers or other, less "respectable", sources hold less sway, although they may be commonly used.[30]:935 He writes that the OED’s "lack-and-white lexicography is also black-and-white in that it takes upon itself to pronounce authoritatively on the rights and wrongs of usage",[30]:935 faulting the Dictionary’s prescriptive, rather than descriptive, usage. To Harris, this prescriptive classification of certain usages as "erroneous" and the complete omission of various forms and usages cumulatively represent the "social bias[es]" of the (presumably well-educated and wealthy) compilers.[30]:936 Harris also faults the editors' "donnish conservatism" and their adherence to prudish Victorian morals, citing as an example the non-inclusion of "various centuries-old 'four-letter words'" until 1972.[30]:935
In contrast, Tim Bray, co-creator of Extensible Markup Language (XML), credits the OED as the developing inspiration of that markup language. Similarly, the author Anu Garg, founder of Wordsmith.org, has called the Oxford English Dictionary a "lex icon".[31]
The iOS version of the OED has used Twitter account access to falsely accuse legitimate users of pirating the software.[32]

 

[Senad Subasic]

Should have quoted that, someone might mistake it for being you.

Indeed, it is very often that I refer to myself as 'we'

 

[Hampus Andersson]

A quote is a quote and should be treated as such, regardless of we you me that it etc etc.

 

[Senad Subasic]

A quote is a quote and should be treated as such, regardless of we you me that it etc etc.

Shame you didn't think to write that in your original reply.

In any case, thank you for the correction, I shall commence intense self-flagellation immediately.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Shame you didn't think to write that in your original reply.

So now i´m psychic and should have looked into my crystal ball before you posted in the thread?

There no correction that has been made, it´s obvious from what we have gathered that it´s not really black and white as i pointed out in my third post,

 

[Senad Subasic]

So now i´m psychic and should have looked into my crystal ball before you posted in the thread?

Not really sure what you're on about here. I simply meant that you should have posted that second, sensible reason for me having to add quotes in your first reply, instead of a pointless jab.

There no correction that has been made, it´s obvious from what we have gathered that it´s not really black and white as i pointed out in my third post,

It's black and white enough for me. I don't presume I know what a word is better than the OED people. Don't care too much about it anyway.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Not really sure what you're on about here. I simply meant that you should have posted that second, sensible reason for me having to add quotes in your first reply, instead of a pointless jab.

So what you are saying is that in my first post i should inform everyone to quote properly?

A quote is a quote and should be treated as such, regardless of we you me that it etc etc.

This i should have written in my first post without knowing that anyone would actually not do it?

Now where did i put my crystal ball..

 

[Senad Subasic]

So what you are saying is that in my first post i should inform everyone to quote properly?

You are a pesky one, aren't you.

No, here, let's try again:

I simply meant that you should have posted that second, sensible reason for me having to add quotes in your first reply, instead of a pointless jab.

In your first reply. Reply.
I have omitted 'to me', yes, but thought it was clear. Especially with the 'instead of', which means you've posted something else about it already. My apologies.