On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:56:02AM -0500, Elizabeth Barham wrote: > I worked through a book on medical terminology and one of the > studies is roots of medical words, their suffixes and their prefixes. > Here are examples: > prefixes [part,definition{multiples separated with ;}]: > endo,within > epi,above, upon > ex,out > exo,out > hyper,excessive;above > roots [part, linking letter/word, definition]: > aden,o,gland > arthr,o,joint > bi,o,life > carcin,o,cancerous, cancer > cardi,o,heart > suffixes [part, definition]: > eal,pertaining to > iac,pertaining to > ior,pertaining to > ism,process > ose,pertaining to, full of > If you're interested, you may view the whole thing at: > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/medicalwords/pre/definitions/en/csv/ > Anyway, I found these in a book and simply typed them in and I > consider these translations/definitions so vague that I don't see how > they are copyright-able yet I want to check it over with you all. So, > I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you all, are vague > translations/definitions copyright-able? It's my understanding that dictionaries, because they contain elements of originality in the selection and wording of definitions, constitute copyrightable works. At least in the US, to be copyrightable a work must be of a certain minimum length; I expect (though IANAL) that the examples listed above aren't enough to gain copyright protection, though a more extensive dictionary very well might be. > You will note that the original word part is Latin. Mostly Greek, actually. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpENXCOrpe7H.pgp
Description: PGP signature