RE: In situ vs. in-situ?
|From:||"Marshall Terry Dr, Consultant Histopathologist" |
"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.
"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
Rotherham General Hospital
From: Morken, Tim [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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
Now, how to pronounce it depends on where you are from
US = in sighttoo
NZ, South africa, Britan(?): = in seetchu
From: Richard Cartun [mailto:Rcartun@harthosp.org]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:08 AM
Subject: In situ vs. in-situ?
I know this is trivial, but what is the proper way to write these two words?
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>