[Skip to Navigation]
December 1962

Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Arch Intern Med. 1962;110(6):931-932. doi:10.1001/archinte.1962.03620240113039

Scholars have lamented the fact that medical dictionaries in the United States, serviceable and workmanlike enough, are shabby examples of the science of lexicography and have no claim at all to its art, for unhappily, as works of art they fall very short. Most physicians complain with justification about the vast pressures of time. Scholarship gets short shrift. No medical dictionary pretends to do more than identify words, spelling, and pronounciation. But if they do this well that is something.

I had a small hand in culling out a great many words and adding a few to the Twentieth Edition of Stedman's. Still, the contribution of any single consulting editor is so small as to have little noticeable effect on the mass of words. The Golden Jubilee Edition, the twentieth within 50 years, indicates that this dictionary has had a steady sale and I hope a useful life.

Anyone who

Add or change institution