[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.142.219. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
December 24, 1973

Dictionaries and Usage

Author Affiliations

Contributing Editor

JAMA. 1973;226(13):1564-1565. doi:10.1001/jama.1973.03230130052019

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

Modern education conditions us to regard a dictionary with reverence. It serves as a point of stability, a standard in a world of constant change. A few years ago a great tumult arose when the new edition of Webster's Third International Dictionary retreated from the position of setting rigid standards, contenting itself with reporting the actual usages, what is rather than what ought to be.

Medical dictionaries generally do not have to contend with this problem. New terms come into being and naturally are included in new editions. At the same time, obsolete terms get eliminated. Only rarely, however, do medical terms undergo a major change in usage.

This problem, nevertheless, so common in ordinary speech, is becoming intrusive into medicine with a recent JAMA publication [Meyerowitz et al, 225:408, 1973] that dealt with an excision of a massive abdominal fold. The authors were not entirely consistent in their

×