tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post6053451928534162715..comments2024-03-16T00:21:43.240+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: Down('s) syndromelynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-53297540455084216692009-01-29T11:09:00.000+00:002009-01-29T11:09:00.000+00:00You can get conflict on this even within one insti...You can get conflict on this even within one institution - compare for example <A HREF="http://www.wolfson.qmul.ac.uk/epm/screening/" REL="nofollow">this </A> and <A HREF="http://www.wolfson.qmul.ac.uk/ndscr/" REL="nofollow">this</A>. Indeed on that second one there's disagreement <I>within</I> the one page. This may not just be an Am/Br thing but maybe some other factor such as older vs younger, medic vs statistician ... difficult to tell.Strawberryyoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01088158170872265875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-29634728307045725112009-01-15T13:12:00.000+00:002009-01-15T13:12:00.000+00:00I think the American Association of Medical Transc...I think the American Association of Medical Transcriptionists prescribe omitting the genitive('s) in medical reporting. The fact that the speech they transcribe almost always includes the genitive must make it confusing.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03636303514258251849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-68688724771284993872008-12-17T13:03:00.000+00:002008-12-17T13:03:00.000+00:00Interface said... It is Down Syndrome in Aus....wh...Interface said... <BR/>It is Down Syndrome in Aus.<BR/><BR/>...which is true enough, but indicates that Interface may be younger than I am. When I was young it was "Down's Syndrome", which was still in the final stages of supplanting "mongolism" in the lay language. It seems to me that the move (promoted by those intimately concerned with the disease) from "Down's" to "Down" took place in the 1970s or 1980s. I believe the justification was that one about "he didn't have the disease himself".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-19953491597970921912008-11-25T16:38:00.000+00:002008-11-25T16:38:00.000+00:00It's interesting to see how a group of parents of ...It's interesting to see how a group of parents of children with Down('s) syndrome refer to it on a BBC forum, here:<BR/>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7745483.stm<BR/>Some Americans say Down's, an Essex resident is adamant it's Down, and several others have Downs, without the apostrophe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-70047721376052583802008-11-24T02:53:00.000+00:002008-11-24T02:53:00.000+00:00Just thought of Kawasaki Disease or Kawasaki Syndr...Just thought of Kawasaki Disease or Kawasaki Syndrome, that is named after the doctor but does not seem to be in the possessive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-70399845394145433742008-11-23T15:54:00.000+00:002008-11-23T15:54:00.000+00:00Robbie's rules (above) need the slight modificatio...Robbie's rules (above) need the slight modification that when a syndrome is named after two or more doctors - the first in print to describe the characteristics defining the disorder - there is no possessive: examples include Wiskott-Aldrich, Charcot-Marie-Tooth disorders.<BR/><BR/>Some 19-20th century doctors were so prolific with descriptive case studies that they have several syndromes or conditions/disorders named after them. More recently, it's difficult to give credit to only one or two people for identifying a new syndrome (a cluster of symptoms arising from a single change in development), because of the technical and multi-disciplinary nature of medical research.<BR/><BR/>Hence there is now a move to give descriptive names or initials as a kind of mnemonic to recall the important components of a syndrome, and to 'clean up' any historical errors and misattributions from the old system. <BR/><BR/>Down('s) syndrome is commonly caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21 - but not always - so we can't call it 'trisomy 21': we still need the name since the symptoms are similar, with various degrees of intensity, in all with the condition. <BR/><BR/>I think that the early-described conditions, which must be more common and more easily recognised than the more recent discoveries, will retain their eponyms, and because of their familiarity the general public will continue to use the possessive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-76024954672320992882008-11-22T14:24:00.000+00:002008-11-22T14:24:00.000+00:00There is actually a rule of English when it comes ...There is actually a rule of English when it comes to medical conditions named after a person.<BR/><BR/>If the condition is named after a doctor or researcher, it's possessive. So Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome, Bright's disease, Paget's fracture, etc.<BR/><BR/>If the condition is named after a patient, then it's just the name without a possessive. So Christmas disease, Lou Gehrig disease, etc. Naming a condition after a patient is very uncommon; generally the patient is either the first person in which the disease was recognised, or else a famous person associated with it.<BR/><BR/>There is also no possessive if the condition is named after a place: Lyme disease, Lassa fever, Bornholm pleurodynia, etc.<BR/><BR/>The rule is generally ignored nowadays, but you can still find mention of it in some medical reference books.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-15688614366426178662008-11-21T09:59:00.000+00:002008-11-21T09:59:00.000+00:00J.L. Bell said...There seems to be an acute lingui...J.L. Bell said...<BR/>There seems to be an acute linguistic sensitivity in this area. Each new generation of respectable terms and euphemisms is eventually deemed rude. Of course, some people use them rudely, but that produces a never-ending search for new language.<BR/><BR/>I thought of this when watching the current BBC dramatisation of "Little Dorrit", in which Fanny Dorrit says of her admirer "He's an idiot". What she actually says in the book is "He is almost an idiot", implying that he is so slow-witted that he can almost be regarded as handicapped. Since we now use "idiot" as a mild insult, when it used to be a technical term, the modern version loses that sense.<BR/><BR/>Kate BuntingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-7539365486214763392008-11-21T05:17:00.000+00:002008-11-21T05:17:00.000+00:00"Alzheimer patient" sounds normal to me. And "Dow..."Alzheimer patient" sounds normal to me. And "Down's child", though this is not sensitive. I say (and think, as it sounds the same) Down Syndrome. <BR/><BR/>There is a billboard I've passed recently trying to do away with "the 'R' word" as it puts it. By which I think they must mean "retarded". This seems to be a new campaign. The billboard has gone up in the last month. (Does Britain have billboards?) For some reason, there's a little voice in the back of my head that says "petarted". I wonder if this is from some SNL skit or something from back in the late 80s when I was in highschool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-8308835037801161132008-11-20T06:28:00.000+00:002008-11-20T06:28:00.000+00:00I thought "Down's Syndrome" was the personality qu...I thought "Down's Syndrome" was the personality quirk that keeps all those hill walkers traipsing around the Sussex countryside.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I couldn't resist injecting a bit of levity into this rather heavy subject. Obviously, it's "Down's" syndrome where I come from (upstate NY).MikeHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01530099708429116393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-68934467794263575642008-11-20T03:08:00.000+00:002008-11-20T03:08:00.000+00:00Having had relatives with Alzheimer's, I've more a...Having had relatives with Alzheimer's, I've more and more heard it called simply "Alzheimer" (no "disease", no apostrophe-s) in discussions among those in (US) organizations promoting research about it, support for those whose relatives have it, and so forth.Chris Laninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07574568785133002628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-6550358766570971822008-11-19T21:42:00.000+00:002008-11-19T21:42:00.000+00:00In AmE you often see the term "Down's child" (usua...In AmE you often see the term "Down's child" (usually only in headlines because it isn't the most sensitive way of putting it -- you wouldn't say "arthritis woman" or "alopecia man"). I've never read "Down child".flatlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711270206823934186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-60674501040389909992008-11-19T20:51:00.000+00:002008-11-19T20:51:00.000+00:00It is Down Syndrome in Aus.http://www.dsav.asn.au/...It is Down Syndrome in Aus.<BR/><BR/>http://www.dsav.asn.au/Interfacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10270650386605534373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-54685353902606796252008-11-19T17:18:00.000+00:002008-11-19T17:18:00.000+00:00My older brother had Down('s) syndrome, so I've fo...My older brother had Down('s) syndrome, so I've followed this issue of spelling, as well as public debates on terms like "Mongoloid" and "retarded" and on what advocacy organizations should call themselves. <BR/><BR/>There seems to be an acute linguistic sensitivity in this area. Each new generation of respectable terms and euphemisms is eventually deemed rude. Of course, some people use them rudely, but that produces a never-ending search for new language.<BR/><BR/>The debate over whether to spell Down('s) syndrome with a possessive (as folks have noted, it makes no difference in the pronunciation) seems to be part of that pattern.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-58922181660922656142008-11-19T15:50:00.000+00:002008-11-19T15:50:00.000+00:00I can see the reason for wanting to standardise bu...I can see the reason for wanting to standardise but it seems pretty foolish to me not to choose the most common popular use of the term for the standard. Most laypeople won't be aware that the medical profession have made this decision (I certainly wasn't) so they'll go on saying what they've always said, leading to the situation of confusion we have today.Roshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02669423378438380019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-1279462840548814182008-11-19T11:09:00.000+00:002008-11-19T11:09:00.000+00:00"Interestingly, though, the 'not using 's in medic..."Interestingly, though, the 'not using 's in medical eponyms' rule doesn't seem to have had as much of an impact for other conditions."<BR/><BR/>Indeed. I'm less familiar with AmE terms for conditions, but I'm struggling to think of a (relatively) common condition named after its diagnoser which doesn't use the possessive in BrE: Asperger's, Weil's disease, Parkinson's.<BR/><BR/>It seems like a spurious objection to me. Tony Blair "neither owned nor had" the UK government, but we still call it Blair's government.Ginger Yellowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06103410278129312943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-22235809277426228632008-11-19T04:34:00.000+00:002008-11-19T04:34:00.000+00:00I agree with cathy that it's most likely a phonolo...I agree with cathy that it's most likely a phonological issue -- the voiced segment at the end of Down causes the 's morpheme to be voiced, and the dissimilation between that [z] and the following [s] results in deletion of the [z]. In Hodgkin's Lymphoma the sequence is [nzl] which is all voiced, so the [z] remains. <BR/><BR/>Also it's silly that CNIH thinks that the 's morpheme can only refer to having or possessing, but they're medical doctors, not linguists, so I'll cut them some slack...susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09577889561684308144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-47496403001264231872008-11-19T01:57:00.000+00:002008-11-19T01:57:00.000+00:00It's interesting that the reason given for droppin...It's interesting that the reason given for dropping the possessive is because "the author neither had nor owned the disorder." This means that it is still correct to refer to "Lou Gehrig's Disease", since the late Mr. Gehrig did suffer from it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-20029602389046223052008-11-19T01:37:00.000+00:002008-11-19T01:37:00.000+00:00The Wkipedia list of eponymical diseases is intere...The <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eponymical_diseases" REL="nofollow">Wkipedia list of eponymical diseases</A> is interesting. There's a lot of variation regarding the possessive, and some "X's syndrome" to refute cathy's theory.<BR/><BR/>There's even "non-Hodgkin's lymphoma", discovered by Dr. non-Hodgkin. <BR/><BR/>The word "disease" is often dropped from names like "Parkinson's" and "Alzheimer's".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-83776638492631431232008-11-19T01:24:00.000+00:002008-11-19T01:24:00.000+00:00My little sister has Down's Syndrome, and I've alw...My little sister has Down's Syndrome, and I've always seen it written in the possessive form here. Maybe I've just always changed it to the possessive in my head though. I don't know. <BR/><BR/>(Arizona, US)BRIT!https://www.blogger.com/profile/11167446228520805073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-89888345162178431302008-11-19T00:22:00.000+00:002008-11-19T00:22:00.000+00:00I suspect whether or not the possessive is used is...I suspect whether or not the possessive is used is related to whether it's a "Syndrome" (which has the initial s) or something else. It's pretty hard to hear that 's, at least in American speech. I have seen both Asperger and Asperger's Syndrome also.<BR/><BR/>But Hodgkin's Lymphoma is another case where the possessive is always used, even in AmE, as far as I know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-10335888541976135802008-11-18T22:40:00.000+00:002008-11-18T22:40:00.000+00:00A similar difference that immediately springs to m...A similar difference that immediately springs to mind is that in BrE we talk about "Jane Austen's House", but in AmE it's "The Paul Revere House", and road signs and so on perpetuate this difference in writing.Mrs Redboots (Annabel Smyth)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11270027663691257254noreply@blogger.com