![]() ![]() (In many instances, one school may only marginally read what another school writes.) Many are in between, some ideas from one group and also another. Each school feels that what they say (or think) regarding certain subjects (i.e., melanocytic neoplasia) makes perfect sense (to them) and the other “school” is “wrong.” Each feels just as strongly about their own concepts, criteria, etc. However, among the different “schools of dermatopathology” there are large differences in the usage, understanding, and the meaning of words (much less so for dermatology.) I feel this is driven by differences in concepts, criteria, plus intangibles that really make one “dictionary” which is accepted by all an impossibility!Īdditionally on this subject there is something even more fascinating to me. The Oxford, Webster, and other well known dictionaries are accepted as “definers of the English language.” They do not differ very much. I hope this piecing together of a discussion of a word from various Ackerman sources has not lead to confusion. Also, some discussions are pieced together from multiple sources. The reason for this is that in many cases (especially in the “A’s”) they follow Bernie and Almut’s method and definitions. Some of the discussions of words are long and rambling and repetitious (i.e., in-situ). I hope my updates of Bernie’s “definitions” which I decided to do have stayed true to Bernie’s ideas and opinions (mine are very similar). One change in a concept usually leads to many changes in the meanings of a word or many words. Some of Bernie’s “words” have been rewritten by me in order to update the material as old ideas were discarded and new ones came to fruition (i.e., the infundibulum is epidermal). A small amount of material comes from “others” and has been paraphrased or rewritten. (However, this is a tribute to Bernie.) Its essence and beyond is “Ackermanian.” Much of the material has been paraphrased from Bernie’s works. A portion of the material is copied verbatim from Bernie’s material. In addition the reader should keep in mind the following: Whenever I say Bernie’s works I am including his coauthors, if any. In summary, the glossaries and “The Journal” were the most useful. Its use accounts for why there are so many words in the “A’s” compared to other letters since this was the only letter for which definitions were done. and other authors) and Bernie’s material from other places, (i.e., Indianapolis meetings, Palm Springs meetings, AAD meetings, ISDP, ASDP, as well as the material from the Institute of Dermatopathology at Jefferson in Philadelphia and the Ackerman Academy in New York, etc.) The Journal has been extremely useful. The journal, Dermatopathology Practical & Conceptual (with Almut Böer, M.D. Discussions of words have been taken from: My task has been to “pluck” the words, ideas, and concepts out, organize them, rewrite some and add some of my own. The Oxford Dictionary, second edition revised, says “dictionary: a reference book containing an alphabetical list of words with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology.” This work is essentially based on Bernie’s opinions about words. This compendium of words is not meant to be “original” nor is, it a “dictionary” as defined. ![]() They encouraged others (using their model) to continue this work. in the journal, Dermatopathology: Practical & Conceptual used an “extended discussion of each word.” They managed to get through the “A’s” (over a two year period) and attempted to show others how a dictionary should be completed. Bernie’s own efforts with Almut Böer, M.D. Bernie considered Morris Leider’s 1976 dermatology dictionary a very limited one for many reasons. Many tried to complete this “project” (in Philadelphia, New York, and elsewhere) but none succeeded. He also felt that this dictionary would serve pathology as well. A Bernard Ackerman always had a “dream” that a dictionary would be created for dermatopathology (and dermatology) so that these fields could better communicate with one another, in one “language.” He felt that until a real dictionary came into being neither would be authentic branches of knowledge. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |