Concerning the right of any person, or body of men, to coin a new word, or to use one already in existence, for the purpose of expressing a new idea, or removing an ambiguity, there can be no question, provided only that the selected word be appropriate and in harmony with the genius of the language. Of course, its acceptance by the public at large, or by the profession, for the use or benefit of which it was coined or selected, cannot be enforced. Yet, if it is found to answer its purpose, and if its superiority over the term formerly used in place of it is recognized, it will gradually and surely come into general use.
The judgment of the writer is that the employment of the word “official” in the sense of “pharmacopœial” is justifiable on linguistic grounds, and that it is, moreover, fully justified by the condition of pharmacy in this country, where a clear distinction between “all sorts of medicines,” and “pharmacopœial medicines” has become necessary. Of course, the Committee of Revision,” which hoped to settle the controversy by an “official” vote, according to which the word “official” was hereafter to be used in place of “officinal,” when applied to pharmacopœial preparations or directions (see U. S. Pharm., 1890, p. xxxvi.), did not mean thereby to encroach upon the ordinary meaning of the word, which appears, for instance, on the title page of the Pharmacopœia in the sentence: “Official from January 1, 1890.”
[1] Professor Husemann did not find this word in Du Cange’s Glossarium Mediæ et Infinæ Latinitatis. It is, however, contained in the latest edition (by Favre; Niort 1883-87), Vol. VI. p. 37.