Duncan Moncrieff Nov 7, 2014:

@ Joanne I agree with you that "reamer" appears to be the more usual term - if you had just a picture of it, you'd more likely call it a reamer than a drill (if you knew what to call it).

Wait, facepalm moment, *$*! @*$#.

I think I understand. I've gone back to the patent and looked through the bibliographic data and I found this:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=...

Same WO number: WO2011144851 (A1), but this time it's called a "Reamer holder for cotyloid cavity". I guess they just wanted to cover both terms.

Otherwise I was going to suggest that, yes, you're right it should be called a "reamer holder" but that (maybe?) a note should be included mentioning that it had been referred to as a "drill holder" in the patent application (or in the patent application for something extremely similar).

As to which term to use in general, yes the normal term is often the best one, but when someone has made an apparently bizarre choice that's not clearly wrong (shared characteristics between drills and reamers), then I like to try and understand why they have done so before changing the term.

Duncan Moncrieff Nov 7, 2014:

@ Joanne I agree with you that "reamer" appears to be the more usual term - if you had just a picture of it, you'd more likely call it a reamer than a drill (if you knew what to call it).

Wait, facepalm moment, *$*! @*$#.

I think I understand. I've gone back to the patent and looked through the bibliographic data and I found this:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=...

Same WO number: WO2011144851 (A1), but this time it's called a "Reamer holder for cotyloid cavity". I guess they just wanted to cover both terms.

Otherwise I was going to suggest that, yes, you're right it should be called a "reamer holder" but that (maybe?) a note should be included mentioning that it had been referred to as a "drill holder" in the patent application (or in the patent application for something extremely similar).

As to which term to use in general, yes the normal term is often the best one, but when someone has made an apparently bizarre choice that's not clearly wrong (shared characteristics between drills and reamers), then I like to try and understand why they have done so before changing the term.

Joanne Archambault Nov 7, 2014:

Terms in patents The fact that "drill holder" appears in the EN abstract of a French patent is a good starting point IMO. However as a translator, I believe it is my responsibility to provide my client with the term that is commonly used in this context, so I need to confirm that "drill holder" is the best translation to use. The alarm bells went off in my head when I saw that the English title includes the term "COTYLOID CAVITY", one that is very rarely used by native English speakers. This makes me very suspect of the English abstract. I did a bit more research (Robert-Collins Dictionary, figures in the French patent, surgical instrument catalogs) and came to the conclusion that "fraise" corresponds to a "reamer" in the context of surgery on the acetabulum (hip). If it were my TR project, this is the term that I would use.

Duncan Moncrieff Nov 6, 2014:

This is in a patent based upon the drawings and the description (the exact same drawings can be found in the original patent application). The original patent application (written in France) has an abstract in English. The English term used in the text is "drill holder". You can argue that from its form and function the term reamer might be preferred, however for some reason the inventors, their translator, their lawyers or the patent clerk decided that it should be called a drill holder and not a reamer holder or handle.
Should you use the term used in the patent or should you use one that you feel is more appropriate? I think that this depends on the final use of the text, and I don't think we know what that is.

Raoul COLIN (X) Nov 6, 2014:

this is medical so possible it is quite different from the usual workshop Tools such as drill holder or drill spindle