[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Ora McCreary
Date: 22 Oct 2011
Time: 09:19:33 -0500
Remote Name: 98.14.253.211
You write "Using the term “stutterer” implies that the characteristic of stuttering encompasses all that a person is. By using “person who stutters” it includes the many other characteristics of what constitutes a person." I've never found this argument convincing. We use nouns all the time to refer to people, and ourselves, without implying that this is all we are. A person might describe himself/herself as an opera-lover, a cook, a writer, a therapist, a pianist, and a singer. None of those descriptions imply that that's the totality of the person. Should we say person who plays piano? Person who cooks? Person who writes? Person who performs psychotherapy? Everyone understands this type of wording, and no one is confused by it. Similarly, no one thinks that a stutterer is ONLY a stutterer. Why then should we invent the awkward phrase "person who stutters"?