I know I've ranted about person-first language before.

[conuly]

I think that the linguistic contortions people go through to use nouns in place of perfectly acceptable adjectives are insane, and draw more attention to the oh-so-stigmatizing disability than just speaking naturally.

However. Special needs is not an adjective. You can't be a "special needs child" because special modifies needs and needs doesn't modify anything, since it's a noun. It sounds stupid. It is stupid. The awkwardness of using a phrase in this manner, again, calls attention to those Very Special Needs of Blossom whatever child that is. Stop it.

Additionally, I'd like to ask which needs a child might have (since it's always special needs child, never special needs person) that are special. I mean, so special that they merit this label. Don't all children have needs, some of which are unique? Or is it that most kids are all alike, and only a few are special enough to merit the label of doom?

Comments

[pne.livejournal.com]

You can't be a "special needs child"

True; but you can be a special-needs child.

needs doesn't modify anything, since it's a noun.

English has a long tradition of nouns modifying other nouns. Consider "apple pie" or "support board".

[pne.livejournal.com]

To clarify: I think that you need a hyphen because 'special needs', as a unit, modifies 'child'; it's not '(special (needs child))' but '((special needs) child)'.

On the other hand, I wouldn't hyphenate 'Aaronic priesthold bearer'. Not sure why.

[conuly]

True; but you can be a special-needs child.

Yup, but I never see that.

English has a long tradition of nouns modifying other nouns. Consider "apple pie" or "support board".

...

_shutup