[9-92-6-19]

Hi, I am new to this forum. Yay for being a newb. Although, I've read the important stuff at the top of the page.

I may not be the greatest at Chemistry, but I can get by pretty well; however, there is one thing that bugs me quite a bit, but I can't seem to figure out.

I understand that Hydride is H^-, but what I do not understand is why ammonia is written NH3. If we were to write ammonia on the basis of cation first and anion second it seems much more logical to write it H3N. Yet, from some research it has come to my understanding that ammonia is a hydride of nitrogen, and, in fact, the simplest hydride thereof. It also makes sense to put it this way because H3N almost implies that ammonia would act as an acid, instead of a base.

This is where I get conflicting ideas. I know that:

2Li + H₂  2LiH
Be + H₂  BeH₂
2B + 3H₂  2BH₃

These reactions make sense because the metal/metaloids reacting are more likely to be oxidized rather than reduced. Carbon is capable of going either way, so it does not make much of a difference; however, Nitrogen is electronegative enough to have Hydrogen bonding, so it seems as though it should be the first element to prefer to be reduced(where Oxygen and Fluorine also exhibit the same property).

If we write NH3 simply because it is tradition then that it a completely different scenario all together, but if it is logical to write ammonia as such then it would be incredibly helpful (to my sanity!) as to why this is so.

Thank you so much,

9-92-6-19

[Borek]

Don't even try to waste your time on exact rules of naming compounds and writing formulas. There are several methods, often conflicting each other, plus sometimes some compounds are written the way they are written just because (let's say "for historical reasons"). It is all covered in The Red Book published by IUPAC.

[9-92-6-19]

Oh, well, all right.

Thank you, sir.