RE: In situ vs. in-situ?

From:Andrew Shand


That would be true if there was only one "original" Latin way of pronouncing
in situ and your teachers knew it.  Why, though, should Latin pronunciation
be any more fixed geographically and temporally than any other language?

Bill Bryson has written a fascinating book on the evolution of English in
the US.  I think it's called "Made in America".  It's well worth a look for
anyone interested in the way language changes.  

Andy Shand

-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Sally A. []
Sent: 28 March 2003 15:14
To: Histonet
Subject: RE: In situ vs. in-situ?

"US = in sighttoo" ...actually some of us who are old and brave enough to
admit to having Latin in high school(and Spanish) probably pronounce it
close to the original Latin way...

Sally Ann Drew-MT(ASCP)
Univ. of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics
IHC/ISH Laboratory 
600 Highland Ave. VAH-DM223
Madison, WI 53792-2472

-----Original Message-----
From: Morken, Tim []
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 8:42 AM
To: 'Richard Cartun';
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


Tim Morken

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Cartun [] 
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?

R. Cartun

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>