The Language of Anatomy. -By William Cuthbert Morton. Edited with
an introduction by Robert Bridges, M.B., F.R.C.P., S.P.E. Tract No. IX. (Clarendon Press. 2s. 6d. net.)— Scientific nomenclature lies outside the province of common speech, and it will perhaps be regretted that the Society for Pure English has turned its attention even temporarily from the defects of our everyday vocabulary to the problem of ana- tomical terminology. In the 'nineties Germany and Austria adopted a Latin terminology which, although banned by the Royal College of Surgeons of England, has since been widely accepted by anatomists. Mr. Bridges, while crediting the Austro-German terminology with reducing the number of terms current in those countries from 30,000 to 5,000, criticizes it severely. He would Anglicize anatomical nomenclature. Our scientists write and speak in English, and they should use English terms whenever these are suitable. When Latin or Greek terms are used, they are preferable in an English form—on this point Mr. Bridges makes many excellent suggestions. Again, it is inconvenient to have two names for the same structure, though they will often be found in text-books. For instance, a boat- shaped bone is called the scaphoid or the navicular. Obviously this is unnecessary, and it is quite reasonable to suggest that the bone should be called either the scapha or the navicle, each meaning boat. The tract ooncludes with a note on " The Poverty of English Accidence " and some miscellaneous corre- spondence, including a classification by Mr. H. W. Fowler of the right and wrong uses of respective and respectively, " words seldom needed, but which a pretentious writer will drag in at every opportunity for the air of thoroughness and precision they are supposed to give to a sentence."
Previous page
