aspergers isn't a word, according to many dictionaries! huh?

Post Reply New Topic

has anyone else noticed this??? when you type aspergers in this forum, the spell checker points out that aspergers is mis-spelled??? what's up with that, wrong planet? how long must we wait for the word "aspergers" to be considered a legitimate word? many dictionaries dont even recognize it as a true word! example:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aspergers

could this be a reason why NTs do not consider this a true condition? i wonder how many NTs hear about aspergers, go to dictionary.com, type the word, and think "oh, right, what a big liar, it's not even a word!"

makes ya think doesnt it??? i think its outrageous!

mike
http://www.myspace.com/mikegeorgemusic

it doesn't matter.

I'm not sure if medical conditions are included in most dictionaries. Apparently they aren't in the one you mentioned.

And most NT's don't use a dictionary for much of anything. If someone really wants to know something about an unfamiliar term, they look it up online rather then running for a dictionary.

it asks if you mean asperger's and links to encyclopedia info...? in my opinion, an encyclopedia article is more substantiating than a dictionary entry.
lots of medical conditions aren't in there.

loads of scientific words arent in a general dictionary. Whenever I write a scientific paper I get lots of words highlighted in red by Word as being misspelt when in fact they are correctly spelt, true words.

Have you looked under Asperger's with the apostrophe? Otherwise, it's just a man's last name.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Asperger's

still not a word. even with the apostrophe.

i understand the points in this thread for why it wouldn't be found in a dictionary. but i disagree. If we use it as a word, and it's talked about, and it describes a condition, it should be in a dictionary. other medical conditions are in the dictionary, autism is. i really think people who decide what new words should be included in a dictionary add it.

i still think it's outrageous. my opinion... the lack of it being in the dictionary lends itself to being considered by NTs to be illegitimate, a non-condition, psuedo science. I think if it were in dictionaries, people would look it up, see it, read about it, and maybe understand us more, minimizing uncertainty and speculations...

mike
myspace.com/mikegeorgemusic

Yeah, but think about this. What would you get if you typed in "Neurofibro Mitosis" to the site? Probably nothin'

There are results for 'Asperger's Syndrome'
Asperger's isn't official, neither is AS. The official term is Asperger's Syndrome.

Autism is in the mess right now, it not even funny.

That whole taxpayer dollars aren't accounted according to the Combat Autism act. Unless someone send me a statement of the money being spent, we won't know if it invested in where it should be.

One thing I have to admit, the 's is really disrupting the meaning of the term.

AKA syndrome AKA disorder... now it getting more confusing and that has become less understood.

Actually, that's one word ("neurofibromatosis"), but it does come up. So does "Asperger's syndrome" though.

great points!

maybe it's just me, but i hate the word syndrome. it equates to a disease, at least in my and most others' interpretations of the word. of course, that's not the only connotating definition, but in American English, it is the prevalent insinuation. i wish we could come up with a better term. I dont feel i have a disease. i just think i'm a different type of human, not better, not worse. just a variation of homo homo sapien. i know i'm gonna catch a lot of flack for that statement. but i think asperger's is an evolutionary variation of man, not a condition. there; i said it.

mike
myspace.com/mikegeorgemusic

It makes sense that "Aspergers" wouldn't be considered a word because it's a (misspelled) possessive form of a proper name, which always gets noticed by spell check. Though, when looking for a children's dictionary, I specifically looked for "autism". The only one that had a definition was Scholastic's Children's Dictionary. That's why I favor Scholastic.