Show Posts
1
Use and Misuse / Re: Are 'persons with disabilities' better than 'disabled persons'?
« on: January 25, 2011, 11:20:14 AM »
To Forum members:
"Disabled person" and "person with disability" simply denote the same signification. To say otherwise would only mean not totally understanding those two (2) phrases.
A disabled person is one with disability. And a person with disability is a disabled person. Both phrases are, at whatever angle you look at them, focusing on the disability suffered by a person. The only reason "person with disability" is preferred to "disabled person" is aesthetics. Person with disability indeed is more pleasing to hear than the other one.
The only difference between the two (2) phrases, from grammatical standpoint, is the modifier used: the former has a participial modifier; the latter, phrase modifier. But whichever of the two(2) modifiers connotes only one (1) thing--disability.
To detail my idea, let me exemplify by giving two sentences, to wit:
a. Joe is a disabled person.
b. Joe is a person with disability.
What could be the possible distinction between the two (2)? To say it's the degree of disability suffered by a person absolutely disables me to accept that answer unwitting enough to dismay a learned mind.
"Disabled person" and "person with disability" simply denote the same signification. To say otherwise would only mean not totally understanding those two (2) phrases.
A disabled person is one with disability. And a person with disability is a disabled person. Both phrases are, at whatever angle you look at them, focusing on the disability suffered by a person. The only reason "person with disability" is preferred to "disabled person" is aesthetics. Person with disability indeed is more pleasing to hear than the other one.
The only difference between the two (2) phrases, from grammatical standpoint, is the modifier used: the former has a participial modifier; the latter, phrase modifier. But whichever of the two(2) modifiers connotes only one (1) thing--disability.
To detail my idea, let me exemplify by giving two sentences, to wit:
a. Joe is a disabled person.
b. Joe is a person with disability.
What could be the possible distinction between the two (2)? To say it's the degree of disability suffered by a person absolutely disables me to accept that answer unwitting enough to dismay a learned mind.