🚀 go-pugleaf

Earlier I wrote:

>: This is the same argument I get from people when I object to the 
>: expressions "hearing impaired" and "visually impaired" and remind
>: them that there are already perfectly adequate words to describe
>: these conditions, to wit, "deaf" and "blind."  


summers@max.arc.nasa.gov (David Summers) responds:

> Are you objecting to others forcing you to use these terms (which I agree
> is dumb) or are you tyring to force them to use the terms you consider
> right?

Neither.

Coercion has nothing to do with it, in either direction.  The context is 
that of principle -- the necessity of employing new terms when perfectly
adequate old ones are already available.


> The fact is that these people don't agree that there are "perfectly
> adequate" words (see below).  

The fact is that these people are wrong (see below).


> What is more, the words you are objecting to are also perfectly adequate  
> (someone who is blind is, in fact, also visually impaired).  So clearly
> they can't be accused of using the language "wrong", just of not using
> it in what you consider the best way.

You're missing the point.  Whether or not PC expressions such as "visually 
impaired" or "developmentally disabled" are semantically inadequate isn't
the issue.  The issue is the necessity and propriety of consciously replacing existing terms with new ones, as part of an attempt as social engineering,
or to avoid causing offense when people have no valid reason to be offended
in the first place -- by words and expressions which are neutrally descriptive.

The terms "deaf" and "blind" were considered perfectly adequate by virtually everyone until recently, when it became _de rigeur_ to employ ridiculously
circumspect terminology in the interest of "sensitivity."  


> (by the way, isn't "perfectly adequate" an oxymoron?  If you want to 
> nitpick...)

You're really grasping about for nits to pick, aren't you?  Could we 
please stick to the matter at hand, or is that asking too much?  By
stooping to such pettiness, you're only underscoring the essential
untenability of your position.


>: "Oh, but someone can have diminished sight or hearing without being
>: completely blind or deaf," they earnestly protest.  At that point I
>: remind them that there are indeed such things as *partial* blindness
>: and deafness, and that the original words are therefore still adequate.
>: The conditions are not monolithic, but admit of degree.  

> Someone can easily have impaired vision without being blind (color
> blindness for example).  

Lacking a qualifier, "blind" implies the partial or complete absence of
vision, not the ability to discern differences in color.  Color blindness
is a different thing entirely.  One can have excellent visual acuity while
still being colorblind.  But I'm sure you knew that, didn't you?


> Also blind generally means totally unable to see (and a quick look at 
> the dictionary shows no entries giving it a "partial blindness" meaning).

Since when does the dictionary explicitly mention the possibility of
degree, as a matter of course, in the definition of _any_ term?  I don't
recall ever seeing this as a standard part of dictionary definitions.  So
that's a rather silly argument, isn't it?


> Thus if they want to talk about partially blind people they need to 
> add the moditifier.  However, "partially blind" excludes totally blind
> people.  

So what?  If totally blind people are relevant to the context as well,
then one could say "blind and partially blind."  Of course, contexts
in which one would be referring to both are probably few and far between.

If one is explicitly referring to partially blind people, then that's 
obvious from the presence of the modifier.  "Blind" is generally assumed
to mean "completely blind" unless otherwise specified.


> Blind is not a term that includes partial blindness as a subset.
> The term "partial" is used to modify the meaning.

So what's your point?  *My* point is that with the availability of
the terms "blind" and "partially blind," all possibilities are nicely
covered; there's no reason to employ contrived, mealy-mouthed terms
like "visually impaired."


> So the realy problem isn't pedantitry.  

No; it's people who can't spell.  *snort*


> It people who want to impose their views on the language on who other 
> people use it.

And those who don't know how to employ contractions.

You keep coming back to this idea of coercion, don't you?  That's interesting;
it offers a certain amount of insight into your oddly contentious mindset.


Geoff

-- 
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +                Mountain View 
geoffm@netcom.com               +  DoD #0996  +                 California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-