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