Septerber L?, i752

Dr. Ne H. Horowitz

Kerckhef? Latoretories

Oelifernis Institute of Technology
Paouéona 4, Csifornta

Dear Norm!

Tam cerry that yor are offendad by my rletreatnent of the Engl4eh
lancuere. If TI heve coined a word, or miaused an cld one, fron. tine to
tine 1% ie heenausc: I had core soncept that was difffoult or cw:bersaane
to exprese in the existing language. Perhaps I should he a purist wore
than I am, but I have always felt that words were norely aymbolic tools,
end thet utility and usage were tho main bases fer their recocnition.
Tf we deny the possibility of evolution in meanings, we will have a sterile
languages There are very few words in esdonee which have net been ultinately
derived in this way.

T# a word is proposed which 4a mibiqveus ey dnprocise in a given eoatert,
themx if it this causes some confusion, then of course 44 heaoaes a very
poor tcol, and should be abariened. Except for very common words which rey
often be misused, natural selection usually takee its course, and you can
help it along hy dgmoring the usazo. For this puymesa 414 48 proforable if
the new usage invelyse an unfaniilar word. I don'4 tnow whether you have
any special brie? for or against "prototronh", but 4t has aaaned to m9 alnost
indispensable in Ste arse of euplication; the tect of {4 w4il) te ite usage
by sthers.

I place less faith than you do dn the value of dictionaries for indicating
current usages for technical terms—~ what does your dictionary have for "“trans-
location" or “inverefon*-~, but I have used the. Taq ast ton happy about

"transiuation", but my ddetionary givea this es the not of conveying aver,

which scened to f14 very wall my sonslustione about Salmonella gonatios, T
know about transducers in Bleotric Power, but thinl this hac no mere preemptive
value than does transformation (= wiz) (or in relation to transfosorda) or
industion or poky (s jail) for their blolocical uses. Tt de fiat Docause
transformation seame eo everloated with diverse somotations tn related contexts
that, I prefer not to perpetuate it. If the only estzbliched uses of tranaducer
aro in distant sontexts, I foresve no trouble fron then. Perhaoa seneone hag
used the exoression, obsourely, in ceasory phyclolocy. I atill think thet

the expression “genetic transduction" stands on its om foot as alnoct self~
exp-.aiatory. I an still not beppy with ite cacophony, and will he leased to
consider any suggestions. (Someone sugzested antromiesion, but this might have
the right connotations).
As to prototroph, Ryan and I asked around about it, and I was accuddnted
with its synonymy with autotroph in the very old literature. My usage
seems close te a special case of autotrophy (4t approximates relative
auxo-autetrophy). Tho oanmidttee that discussed mrtritional nomonelature
4n 1946 (OSH volume 11) did net complain about "prototroph". Ita synonymy
with autotroph was rare and is obsolete.

I do not agree with your third paragraph, but agree wholeheartedly with
your fifth. Ferhapsa we should have en International Judicial Gommission for
genesis aases, as thate 4c for botanical and zoologiaal. (Evan there, albeit
wmifortinately, we will find that syemoxax worde aro imported without pre-
fudtos, cer. Veorophttc 4 Motors and in the ayenaotyeetoa). Tom not
sure vhore wa should drayv the line, ani have perhans been too beholden to
convenionce. This does not preclude getting good advice on the subject. If
you mear al! thia seriously, I will have my revenze on you by asking for
4% on tho nazt sucasion. O1 the whole, I urefer 2 dictinetive uow emstruction
(ae. surtoteech) to an feoracica aonlicetton of an old ghe foers btochemfoal
mutant, in tho sata aonse), hut this may be wiedoe.

Sincerely,

Jorhua Laderhorg
Acseecirte Or