Afghan/Khyber Knife

[ariel]

Thank you.
I got it: the term “ pulp” is an internal lingo of the carvers and traders of walrus tusks , i.e. people having no knowledge of, and no interest in correct terminology. Among themselves they could have used “Shadra” or ”thingamajig” to the same effect. But no professional anatomist or dentist would even dream about confusing pulp with dentin, wouldn’t you agree?
In other words, you relied on the information obtained from popular sources and did not verify it by consulting proper professional ones. It’s a pity: your book was supposed to reflect the official view of a respectable museum of natural history and as such adhere to the universally accepted scientific terminology.

If you ever republish it, even in Russian, my advice would be to correct the goof. And go through the entire book with a fine-tooth comb: where there is one error, there must be more.

With best wishes.

BTW, you do not have to post my earlier fees: since the original exchange my honoraria went up:-)

[mahratt]

You are welcome.

You probably don’t know that there is a different terminology related to different areas of science In addition, the Russian language is very rich (has a wide variety of words) and the same subject can be called in several terms, depending on where it is used.
I’ll explain again, because I see that you did not understand. If my book were addressed to dentists or biologists who specialize in the study of walruses, then I would use other terms to describe the structure of the walrus fang. But since the book is addressed to museum staff and collectors, I used the official terminology, which is accepted among them. I hope you now understand and we can finish this discussion

I'm glad I can teach you something new. With best wishes.

P.S. By the way, I think you should start advising someone to correct something in books related to arms and armor, as well as artistic and decorative items, after you write your "ideal book"

[Ren Ren]

Ariel, do you imagine a situation in which a specialist in Latin philology begins to correct medical and biological terminology?
Any terminology is only an auxiliary tool that allows you to transfer information among specialists with minimal loss of meaning. And only within the circle of these specialists can it be recognized as right or wrong.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Ariel, do you imagine a situation in which a specialist in Latin philology begins to correct medical and biological terminology?
Any terminology is only an auxiliary tool that allows you to transfer information among specialists with minimal loss of meaning. And only within the circle of these specialists can it be recognized as right or wrong.

Bravo, Ren Ren. Absolutely for sure

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Ariel, do you imagine a situation in which a specialist in Latin philology begins to correct medical and biological terminology?
Any terminology is only an auxiliary tool that allows you to transfer information among specialists with minimal loss of meaning. And only within the circle of these specialists can it be recognized as right or wrong.

It is not a question of philology: it is a question of correct terminology. Calling secondary dentin a pulp is fundamentally incorrect: those are different parts of a tooth, with different location, structure, consistency and function. This is not “ the minimal loss of meaning”: it is a total one.
The level of writing depends on the audience: if one addresses tusk carvers, one can use their lingo, but in a supposedly professional book one should use professional terms. Carvers would look totally befuddled if one asks them about secondary dentin; professional biologists would not be able to understand how one can carve anything from a thin layer of a viscous pulp.

So the question is: was the book a professional publication of a respectable museum of biology or a popular brochure aimed at the makers and buyers of carved trinkets? It is the “either/or” distinction. If the latter, I shall withdraw my objection. But then, the museum and the author should not advertise it as a scientific publication.

[Ren Ren]

No complaints have yet been received from professionals

[ariel]

They either never read the book or do not visit this forum:-)
Or both.

[Ian]

Guys,


I think the dental debate has been exhausted. Let's move on please.


Ian

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

But since the book is addressed to museum staff and collectors, I used the official terminology, which is accepted among them.

Regretfully, neither reference was from professional anatomy or dentistry book. It is their opinion that I hoped to learn from.

Museum staff and collectors must also know what they are talking about. After all, none of them are carvers or traders who may use whatever lingo they want.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Regretfully, neither reference was from professional anatomy or dentistry book. It is their opinion that I hoped to learn from.

Museum staff and collectors must also know what they are talking about. After all, none of them are carvers or traders who may use whatever lingo they want.

You probably didn't get it. But I will repeat it again. The book is not addressed to dentists and biologists - specialists in walruses. The terms that I used are used by ethnographers, museum workers, and professional bone cutters. I realized that you did not know this. But now you know that.
In addition, the book received numerous positive reviews from experts from various museums and from art restorers