RE: In situ vs. in-situ?

From:Phillip Huff

in situ

Definition: (in SY-too, in SICH-choo) (Latin) In the original place.

I have always seen it as in situ.

In addition, words that people wish to be written in italics are generally
underlined if an italics function is not available.  If an underline
function is not available, you can use HTML coding: in situ to
specify you want a word/term italicized. Underlining, however, should be
your primary option.

Phil










Tim writes:
>
> "NZ, South Africa, Britan(?): = in seetchu"
>
> Not sure if the ? after Britan indicates uncertainty as to the spelling
> of Britain or as to the pronunciation of in situ:-)
>
> Never heard it said as anything other than "in sighttoo", either here or
> in NZ.
>
> PS Re:
> "I know this is trivial, but what is the proper way to write these two
> words? R. Cartun"
>
> Theres nowt wrong with trivial.
>
> PPS How do people cope with words which should be italicised, but do not
> have the wherewithal to italicise them? *Like this*, or what?
>


> Dr Terry L Marshall, B.A.(Law), M.B.,Ch.B.,F.R.C.Path
>  Consultant Pathologist
>  Rotherham General Hospital
>  South Yorkshire
>  England
>         terry.marshall@rothgen.nhs.uk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morken, Tim [mailto:tim9@cdc.gov]
> Sent: 28 March 2003 14:42
> To: 'Richard Cartun'; Histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
> Subject: RE: In situ vs. in-situ?
>
>
>  use "in situ", lower case, but ideally italicised, as with "in vivo" or
> "in
> vitro"
>
> Now, how to pronounce it depends on where you are from
>
> US = in sighttoo
> NZ, South africa, Britan(?): = in seetchu
>
> Others?
>
> Tim Morken
> Atlanta
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cartun [mailto:Rcartun@harthosp.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:08 AM
> To: Histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
> Subject: In situ vs. in-situ?
>
>
> I know this is trivial, but what is the proper way to write these two
> words?
>
> R. Cartun






<< Previous Message | Next Message >>