0
$\begingroup$

Consider the following compound:

enter image description here

Why it is named 1-ethoxypropan-2-ol and not 2-ethoxypropan-1-ol?

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Mithoron, Mathew Mahindaratne, Todd Minehardt, aventurin, M.A.R. ಠ_ಠ Jan 13 at 12:36

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 1-Ethoxypropan-2-ol and 2-ethoxypropan-1-ol are different compounds; therefore, this is not mainly a problem of nomenclature rules. You should try to draw both compounds. $\endgroup$ – Loong Jan 12 at 8:56
  • $\begingroup$ I've replaced the formula (which could be interpreted ambiguously) with the image, probably this can also assist you in understanding how the name emerges. $\endgroup$ – andselisk Jan 12 at 9:00
  • $\begingroup$ @andselisk Skeletal formula with inconsistent carbon explicitness can have other problems… $\endgroup$ – mykhal Jan 12 at 11:38
  • $\begingroup$ @mykhal I'm not sure what you mean by " inconsistent carbon explicitness" (hidden labels for carbons/hydrogens?), but feel free to roll back my edit if you think it adds confusion:) $\endgroup$ – andselisk Jan 12 at 11:44
  • $\begingroup$ @andselisk Right. But, whether the structure formula change is useful depends on why Abhishek thinks it should be named differently. I mean, it might be useful, but rather as an answer; implanting into the question might not help understanding Q. author thought process. $\endgroup$ – mykhal Jan 13 at 7:15