ChatterBank1 min ago
No best answer has yet been selected by BigB. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
While it is true that a literal usage of the IUPAC naming rules would lead to a name of dihydrogen monoxide, as given by SarCaustic, it is also true by IUPAC convention that this is not recognised as the correct name for H2O. Water is the only acceptable term. Similarly, while NH3 might be expected to be called nitrogen trihydride by a strict rendering of the naming rules, this is not recognised either. The only acceptable name is ammonia. A bit strange? Possibly. But they make the rules. We merely have to adhere to them. A bit like golf, I suppose!
IUPAC rules can be a devil to come to terms with on occasions and have caused confusion to the best chemists since their introduction - it has even happened to me and I'm a university biochemistry professor.
In regard to Pottsy's comment, I agree entirely with my fellow chemists, Gef and shammydodger, that the apparent quote from wikipedia is fallacious. The pseudo-scientific names quoted appear impressive but are what I would expect from a class of teenage school students with no concept of the IUPAC rules.
Perhaps, this is the price we have to pay in allowing the general public to edit wikipedia freely.