[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
  [Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

[IP] RE: Re: "a diabetic" vs. "diabetic"

>Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 17:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Becky <email @ redacted>
>Subject: [IP] Re: "a diabetic" vs. "diabetic"


>moreover, one's agreement or disagreement on whether they are a noun or a
>adjective-laden conglomerate has nothing to do with their understanding of
the english language.
>with this, their adoption or non-adoption of language imposed by the
self-appointed intelligentsia
>has nothing to do with either their education level or their intelligence--
and neither their
>intelligence nor their education level has anything to do with the reason
they joined this list.
>there are diabetics here with doctoral degrees and diabetics here who
haven't got their high
>school diplomas, and every single one of them has a part in the community
here; there is no place
>whatsoever on the IP list for this sort of intellectual snobbery.


Help me understand why the snobs and intelligentsia dont publish
articles in _Diabetes Forecast_ using diabetic as a noun?  Help me rework
my brain. When I read John is a diabetic I see an emphasis on diabetes,
whereas John has diabetes seems to focus me more on John; help me lose
this difference.  Then again maybe your decision not to use capitals (very
often) indicates your level of concern for the readability of your posts.  I
try to write to be understood and express what I am trying to say.  Not that
I always achieve this.

English is a living language.  Usage determines what is correct and what
falls into disuse.  Those that disagree with me: please refer to the next
person you meet  that has cancer as a cancerian.  Soon you can make others
see the usefulness of this briefer and clearer usage. :)

for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe, contact: HELP@insulin-pumpers.org
send a DONATION http://www.Insulin-Pumpers.org/donate.shtml