🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <geoffmD6s1LH.2HC@netcom.com> geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff Miller) writes:
>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."  

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?

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

(by the way, isn't "perfectly adequate" an oxymoron?  If you want to 
nitpick...)
>
>"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).  Also blind generally means totally unable
to see (and a quick look at the dictionary shows no entries giving
it a "partial blindness" meaning).  Thus if they want to talk
about partially blind people they need to add the moditifier.
However, "partially blind" excludes totally blind people.  

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

>>Also, based on your apparent attitude, I expect that you won't
>>find the distinction pedantic.
>
>No.  Simply wrong.

So the realy problem isn't pedantitry.  It people who want to impose
their views on the language on who other people use it.
>
>
>
>
>Geoff
>
>-- 
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +                Mountain View 
>geoffm@netcom.com               +  DoD #0996  +                 California
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-


--
________________________
(Disclaimer: If NASA had any postion on any of this do you 
think they would have ME give it?)
David Summers - Summers@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.gov