I think this (https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.language.artificial%2FZL4e3fD7eW0%2F_7p8bKwLJWkJ) is fun (other with less of an interest in languages might disagree). It's a short essay on atomic theory, written by science fiction author Poul Anderson - the fun bit is that he has chosen a variant of English that reflects the word formation processes used by Old English, a thousand years ago. It's as if the Norman Conquest hadn't happened, and English had been allowed to evolve without the impact of French. In particular, words for new concepts are not borrowed from other languages, as we do, but instead are translated and rendered using compounds of existing words. So, for example, "atom", from Greek meaning "undivided" or "indivisible", is replaced with "uncleft", and the related adjective "atomic" becomes "uncleftish". As you might guess, almost every scientific word has to be translated in this way, as do quite a lot of others.
I'm not sure about "stuff" as the suffix for all the elements. Was a fun read though :)
I suspect that's influenced by German, which uses "stoff" as a suffix for a few of the elements discovered in the early days of modern chemistry - e.g. Wasserstoff = hydrogen, Kolhenstoff = carbon, Sauerstoff = oxygen. But where German mostly uses the -ium ending in the same way as modern English, Anderson presumably rejected it as borrowed (from Latin?) and substituted his own regular ending.
Yes, I suppose it's that "stuff" in English conveys a strong sense of vagueness or variability about what the stuff is, which is the opposite of what's wanted here in many ways.