Is it really any clearer to say ``edentulous'' instead of ``toothless''?

Question

Here's what Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary has to say about ``edentulous'' (I'm quoting the 1913 edition because it's freely available on the web, e.g. at www.dict.org but I guess the definition's not changed much in eighty years.)

Edentulous \E*den"tu*lous\ (?; 135), a. [L. edentulus; e out +
     dens, dentis, tooth.]
     Toothless.

So what does the longer and more obscure word buy us?

Answer

• One Dutch correspondant expressed the need for Latin and Greek terms as ``Not all of us speak your very difficult language.'' (What's so hard about English? :-)

  The point here is that technical terms such as ``pes'' and ``edentulous'' are the same in all languages, which makes it easier for people to make some sense of technical papers written in languages other than their first.

   

• There are some technical words, of course, which have no commonplace equivalent - or at least, the technical word is much more clearly defined. For example, while we can say ``hand'' instead of ``manus'', we really need the term ``premaxilla'', since the only alternative would be ``the bone at the front of the upper jaw, except in ceratopsians, in which it's the bone behind the front one.''

  A less extreme example is ``pes''. It's tempting just to say ``foot'', but a statement like ``the ceratopsian foot has four digits'' could be misinterpreted as referring to the forefoot. I suppose that the terse ``pes'' is better than ``hind foot'' once you're used to it.

   

• Some people feel it's inappropriate to talk about (for example) and Ichthyosaurus foot; but the concept of an Ichthyosaurus pes is well-defined.

   

• Another correspondant, however, replied to the question ``what does the longer and more obscure word buy us?'' simply by saying ``In brief, nothing.''

  As an example, consider the article Function and Adaptation in Paleontology and Phylogenetics: Why Do We Omit Darwin?, available at palaeo-electronica.org/2000_2/darwin/issue2_00.htm. The abstract is available in two versions, the version initially displayed in scientific language, and the other (click on the ``Plain-language summary'' link in the left-hand column) using everyday language and phrasing. In addition to being clearer, the everyday version fills in assumptions and makes explicit assertions that are only tacit in the more Latinate version. The clearer statements were more compelling. (Of course, this is really just a plea for good, clear, writing.)

On top of all these arguments, it's hard to avoid wondering whether a part of the reason for the extensive use of technical vocabulary is a sort of ``preservation of the priesthood'' - established scientists subconsciously not wanting it to be too easy for newcomers to enter their field, which certainly happens in, say, computer science. But maybe that's just mindless paranoia.

All in all, my feeling is that ``pes'' makes a certain amount of sense, but that when an animal has no teeth, we should say it's ``toothless'', not ``edentulous''.

I will leave the final word on this subject to Edward Summer of the Dinosaur Interplanery Gazzette at www.dinosaur.org

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:45:29 -0500 From: Dinosaur Interplanetary Gazette To: dinofaq@egroups.com Subject: [dinofaq] Technical terms We've been publishing a science magazine for children for over five years now and the issues represented by "common language" versus "scientific language" are very important ones. It's quite clear that some technical terms are "jargon" that keep a particular "in-group" (in this case paleontologists) separate from everyone else. This has the advantage of preserving jobs and preserving the appearance of expertise. After all, if no one can understand what you're talking about, then they have to consult you to explain it to them. Just look at attorneys to see that in action. On the other hand, we have readers in more than 135 countries now who speak not quite that many languages. It's a form of cultural arrogance to start with an English language term like "toothless" and assume that lots of people will understand what it means just because you and I do. That's where standardization to a Greek or Latin (or other agreed upon term) is useful: It becomes a universal word that stands apart from everyday language. Now the standard terms change over time (French, for example, used to be the standard language of diplomacy and German the standard language of science): There are proposals to make Chinese the standard written language for science because the written characters are so specific and distinct. Nonetheless, English is becoming an almost universal language for day to day conversation, and Latin (Greek) has maintained its status in the naming of animals. I'd say it's a two edged sword and probably the best solution. There is, however, a responsibility of practicing scientists to communicate with the specific audience to whom they're speaking: "pes" is great at an SVP meeting, but it's not great (without explanation) when speaking to 3 year olds in a science class in Namibia or Chicago.