Semantics

[Pabmusic]

A few days ago, Peter White, the BBC's Disability Correspondent chided someone he was interviewing for using the term, 'the disabled'. We are now supposed to say 'disabled people'.

I think this is PC language take to excess.

There are many, many expressions such as 'the elderly'. 'the unemployed', 'the younger generation' and so on which seem equally harmless to me.

What do the others think?

I agree with Mahlerei in post 150 that there is a difference between 'the disabled' and 'disabled people'. And, much as I dislike saying it, it is probably best to avoid it, given that 'disabled people' is readily available to use. Using the definite article does depersonalise any group very easily. This does not often matter where the context is neutral, but 'the Blacks' or 'the Jews' can easily sound loaded; likewise 'the disabled', though probably to a lesser degree.

On the subject of capitals, there has been a clear tendency for at least 200 years to reduce the use of capitals. It was certainly common to capitalise all or most nouns when Defoe and Swift were writing. As far as 'home secretary' goes, though, I don't agree with you. Titles of any sort are a kind of jargon, and it's often necessary to remind people of that; capitals do this well. So, home secretary may be easy to understand (though not literally, surely - it sounds more like someone who administers homes), but chancellor of the exchequer isn't. By using capitals it becomes clear that it's a title, a bit of jargon for 'government person responsible for finance'.

[Ventilhorn]

From the Daily Telegraph, re: the Olympic Stadium deal with West Ham FC:

Interested parties will have until January to submit their bids and the OPLC will then try and put together a package of tenants that makes the stadium viable.

"Try and put". Yet another example of bad usage by journalists who should know better (and presumably passed by a sub-editor as being correct).

VH

[mercia]

you would prefer "try to put together"
isn't colloquialism allowed?

[amateur51]

A few days ago, Peter White, the BBC's Disability Correspondent chided someone he was interviewing for using the term, 'the disabled'. We are now supposed to say 'disabled people'.

I think this is PC language take to excess.

There are many, many expressions such as 'the elderly'. 'the unemployed', 'the younger generation' and so on which seem equally harmless to me.

What do the others think?

I think Peter White is quite right

My impairments may be quite different from yours and those of 20 other people but what we have in common is that we are 'people' and our lives affected adversely by a disabling society that assumes that everyone has 20:20 vision, can climb a steep flight of 10 steps, uses a wheelchair, can hear in a room where other people are speaking softly, can queue without sitting for 15 minutes, can deal with the high levels of sugar in a tin of baked beans, or can get up every day at 07:00 bright and perky rather than can manage that one day in five and you're never sure when that will be.

Calling us the disabled tends to create the idea that we're all the same. 'Disabled people' is what we want to be called today. 20 years ago, we preferred 'people with disabilities' but we grew to realise that this was rather long-winded. Goodness knows what we might prefer in 10 years time but rest assured, we'll let you know

[Ventilhorn]

I think Peter White is quite right

My impairments may be quite different from yours and those of 20 other people but what we have in common is that we are 'people' and our lives affected adversely by a disabling society that assumes that everyone has 20:20 vision, can climb a steep flight of 10 steps, uses a wheelchair, can hear in a room where other people are speaking softly, can queue without sitting for 15 minutes, can deal with the high levels of sugar in a tin of baked beans, or can get up every day at 07:00 bright and perky rather than can manage that one day in five and you're never sure when that will be.

Calling us the disabled tends to create the idea that we're all the same. 'Disabled people' is what we want to be called today. 20 years ago, we preferred 'people with disabilities' but we grew to realise that this was rather long-winded. Goodness knows what we might prefer in 10 years time but rest assured, we'll let you know

Oh my dear chap! You have my deepest sympathy Personally, I prefer "people with disabilities" (which includes dislexia, dementia, neurosis and OCD)

10 years time? I doubt if you and I will still be around to find out.

VH

[salymap]

Years ago when I was still working I discovered that our gas and electric supplier had written 'cripple' on their paperwork to encourage the meter reader to wait a while for someone to answer the door.

My mother, in her last year, was 87, had all her 'marbles' but a degree of bad arthritis which slowed her down. They meant well but it really annoyed me. Surey there was a better way of putting it.

[Mahlerei]

Just heard Matthew Amroliwala on BBC News Channel tell us Gus O'Donnell 'straddled several Prime Ministers'.

Oo-er.

[Serial_Apologist]

Just heard Matthew Amroliwala on BBC News Channel tell us Gus O'Donnell 'straddled several Prime Ministers'.

Oo-er.

If he can do the splits, that makes me a disabled person!

On the question of caps, as a writer on music I constantly agonize over whether or not to capitalise sub-categories such as Serialism, Neo-classicism, Postmodern, Impressionism, Cool Jazz, Hard Bop, Fusion, even major categories such as Rock Music (Rock music?), Jazz, Ragtime, Blues, Hip Hop (Hip hop?), etc. If anyone can definitively make my mind up for me on this matter, I will seriously consider remembering them in my will (or Will).

S-A

[Segilla]

Regarding 'the disabled' vs. 'disabled people', the responses surprise me - but I respect the feelings of the writers, and others.

Being disabled myself it bothers me not one jot as there are more important things to think about than worrying over such words. If someone wants to call me a honkie - go ahead. 'Sticks and stones ... ' are a different matter.

My mind goes back to some rather strange words said by my school headmaster in the late 1940s. A cellist, he was a cultured and sensitive man.
He announced at assembly that he had been outraged at the way he was treated by local politicans who wanted to control his school. His words, spoken in anger are still clear in mind.

"How dare they speak to me like that; I'm a friend of Mozart".

Incomprehensible, laughable even to most of us boys but I now understand what he meant and draw strength and solace from such sentiments.

[mangerton]

I'm resurrecting this thread to say that I have just heard the BBC's "Chief Political Correspondent" introduce PM Questions. While doing this, he demonstrated that he does not know the meaning of "disinterested", and used the term "snuck".

I leave it to others to comment. I am beyond speech.

[vinteuil]

I share your dislike of the current misunderstanding of 'disinterested' / 'uninterested' - tho' I fear it's a battle lost long since.

On the other hand I rather like 'snuck'. Do we have an etymology/history?

[EDIT - and the fact that The Daily Fail dislikes it gives me even greater comfort in the use of snuck. I shall use it regularly from now on... ]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284254/Britain-declares-war-words-snuck-skedule-.html

[Serial_Apologist]

Snack?

[mangerton]

Snack?

No. "Snoek" I believe was a snack, or possibly a full meal.

vinteuil, I looked up my Chambers for the etymology of "snuck": "dialect or N American colloq" Thank you for the info about the "Daily Wail". I might start using "snuck" too.

As an aside, "snook" according to Chambers has three meanings, and a number of alternative spellings (snoek, snoke, snowk) depending on the meanings. I add this information for the benefit of any Scrabble players who might be reading. K is of course worth 5 points.

[Segilla]

Snoek was a fish from South African waters, I believe, sold in tins and was intended to be the salvation of us post-WWII Britons. It was introduced by the Minister of Food, John Strachey and was not well-received.
Incidentally, because of shortage of red meat at the time, The White Fish Authority used to advertise on hoardings encouraging the eating of cod and so on. How cheap it was then.

I have heard 'snuck' (of fairly recent introduction?), being used as the past tense of 'sneak'.

[gurnemanz]

According to Steven Pinker in his book "Words and Rules" the form "snuck" is the most recent irregular past tense to enter the language, first cited by the OED in 1887. Origins are uncertain, but it is presumably by analogy with the much older Anglo-Saxon based strong verbs like "slink/slunk", "stick/stuck", "cling/clung" etc. I suspect it may be because it is a brash latecomer that I prefer not to use it. It is certainly not standard usage.

No one knows why irregular verbs came about but I like the theory that if the the present form has a front vowel (i,e) the past form takes on a back vowel (a,o,u) as in sing sang sung. As the thought goes back in time the sound instinctively goes towards back in the mouth. This would work for sneak/snuck.