I think that you are right with this: In summary, the currently increasing use of "in cellulo" is incorrect since it does not respect the gender of the Latrin name for cell. One may argue that the Latin word "cellulum" ( which would be neutral) could be specially created to "force-fit" an ad hoc term for a phonetic equivalent to in vivo and in vitro,
I guess they simply believed that putting an "o" at the back is the right thing to do.
You are making it more about langauge/latin and in these days.. I doubt many scientists had an education in latin or are familiar with latin.
I dont know a lot of latin, but if you are right then yeah, its wrong to say in cellulo, but then again, many words that are used are not "really" latin ...
Some authors came up with words that "sounded" latin or they used a latin word and changed it a bit.. I dunno..
Maybe you are right, maybe you should write in cellula in your next paper and why not add what you said here: add a little text box explaining why you used in cellula rather then in cellulo?
This makes me wonder: who not make an entire paper about the use of latin words in science? I wonder if there are such papers out there? It would sound trivial that some langauge experts are making studies about the use of latin in science and wrote papers about this.. Or not?
If I was an expert in latin, I would find it an intersting topic: the difference between latin as a common langauge in science in the old days (langauge known by all and used by all) vs latin used in modern science by scientist that do no know/use latin as a daily langauge.
Richard PoulinMember Since 03 Mar 2012
Offline Last Active Mar 12 2012 03:52 AM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 2
- Profile Views 434
- Member Title member
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
My research interests
Cancer, cell biology, physiology, polyamines, pharmacology