"Ethnographics" are usually not brutes, but stupidity among them is of the same incidence as in general population or collectors of regulation weapons. They are usually more arrogant, because there are no regulation standards, and they are free to make statements on the basis of their opinions, not on officially recorded facts.
Well, as any negative trait, it can have some good in it: replace arrogance with perseverance:-)

Between arrogance and stupidity, I choose arrogance :)

Dear friend, I see you try to be "have a finger in every pie" all the time, if it concerns my messages. It really flatters me :)
There are many specific linguistic circulation in the Russian language that you are not familiar with due to the specifics of your profession. This is normal. You can’t know everything. But this is not scary. We are all learning.
I did not say anything about the structure of the tooth. Therefore, you put a picture in the subject in vain :) I spoke of the fact that in Russian, among specialists, a certain part of walrus fang is called “pulpа” and this has nothing to do with ordinary tooth pulp. The same part of the tooth is also called "scadra". There is no such word in English at all.
So you don’t have to try to seem smarter than it really is :) You are already a smart enough person. Nevertheless, do not try to be an expert in all sciences. Otherwise, you will look stupid.

I propose to continue the discussion of the Khyber knife of Norman. Of course, if someone can say something new.

P.S. I must add that the manuscript of the book has a positive response from a leading specialist in Russia, who specializes in tusks of elephants and mammoths, as well as walrus fangs, an expert from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation;) This review was published at the beginning of my "Guide to Osteological Materials".
But, probably, you know more than this respected specialist :)

Please teach me: post a scan from a professional Russian publication where walrus dentin is called “pulp”.
I shall be grateful for any new info about knowledge of elementary histology among academic Russian anatomists or dentists:-)))

How did you write when you were asked a similar question in Russian forum, asking to scan just a couple of pages from the right book? If my memory serves me: "Is every hour of my time very expensive?" It seems you said that an hour of your time costs $ 500? :) Perhaps I should give a link to this message of yours so that everyone knows that I am not inventing, but telling the truth? What do you think?

Of course, my time is not so expensive, but I also appreciate my time. Nevertheless, I am not so arrogant and will answer you.

I did not write about academic publications (please quote me if I am wrong), but I told about special terms that are common among specialists who oversee collections of bone products (walrus fangs, elephant and mammoth tusks, camel leg bones, etc.) in museums and similar organizations, as well as among those people who now make bone products (bone carvers). And I wrote that you may not know about these specific terms
Of course, if you communicate with biologists who are specialists in the study of walruses, they will use other terms. However, I think there are no such people among the forum participants :) My book on the definition of osteological materials was not written for specialists in the study of walruses, but for museum workers who store products from animal bones and for collectors. As you requested, I attach a scan from the book in the subject, with a description the walrus fang. Especially for you, I highlighted the word "pulpa". Forum participants who speak Russian will confirm that my words correspond to what is written in this book.
I hope now that I have satisfied your curiosity, we can return to the discussion of the Khyber knife ;)

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:-)

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" ;)

Ariel, do you imagine a situation in which a specialist in Latin philology begins to correct medical and biological terminology? :D
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 :)

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.

No complaints have yet been received from professionals ;)

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

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.

Guys,


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


Ian

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 :)

Thanks so much for understanding Ian.

Sorry for my last post. But probably my bad English made it difficult for Ariel to understand what I am writing about. I hope he understood now.