Thoughts on transforming language.
I understand the underlying concerns addressed in your article in the April issue ("Tools for Transforming Language," p. 10). However, we do have to be careful that we do not oversimplify our efforts to the point that we do not paint a clear picture of the individual(s) we are addressing. For instance, take your example (and I assume it was just an example) of using unique in place of crazy. That would leave much room for interpretation, although I would not suggest using crazy. But there are better terms to describe both diagnostic impression as well as true diagnosis.
It reminds me of those who would describe an adulterer as an immoral person. That, too, would leave much room for interpretation. If we continue to water down our terminology for the sake of avoiding terms that may hurt an individual's feelings, we also take the risk of keeping them from facing the real problem or concern, and dealing with it in a realistic manner.
Ed Tedder, Executive Director
The Shepherd's House, Inc.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Article Type:||Letter to the editor|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||Is 2006 the year for parity?|
|Next Article:||Part D serves big pharma, not consumers.|
|Say it loud, say it proud.|
|Separate but equal? Can science tell us anything about religion?|
|CAT tax article offers clarity.|
|Lay off letter writers with imperfect English.|
|Speaking for all.|
|Why the big words?|