"Autist" or "Autistic"? Correct term?

Post Reply New Topic

naturalplastic, it doesn't matter what you feel. Linguistically, autist is correct. It is solely based on linguistics. How about you try to detach yourself completely from everything but linguistics and you will actually understand where I am coming from. Usually, I see mostly Americans use the word "autistic" as a noun. But just because someone uses it doesn't mean it is correct. Or do dictionaries now use their, there and they're interchangably just because many people don't know the difference?

Let's put it like this: "Autist" is proper English. "Autistic" as a noun is colloquial English. It is like comparing, "alright?" with "aight?" or "going to" with "gonna".

I utterly hate it when others use "with autism" or say "person's name has autism". It makes being autistic sound like a horrible disease, which I believe it is not. I know NTs refuse to learn saying someone is autistic is not wrong or politically incorrect, which makes me hate that even more.

But that's just my opinion, heaven forbid I have one on my own on the internet.

Actually dictionaries do not dictate usage. They follow usage. If the majority of people are observed by dictionary compilers to be using word X mean meaning Y then dictionaries will publish that majority usage as one of correct meanings of the word. If "autistic" is what English Americans usually use then that IS the correct meaning of the word.

If you have schizophrenia then you are a "schizophrenic", if you have diabetes then you are a "diabetic" (not a schizophrenist, and not a diabetist).

Likewise for autism.

On both counts, lexically, and medically, you're dead wrong.

On top of that I don't get paid to do autism as a profession or a craft, like an artist does art.

I agree that both terms are kinda makeshift and klunky, but "person on the spectrum" takes too long to say, and nobody would know what you meant by it (WHICH spectrum? The political spectrum? The electromagnetic radiation spectrum? ).

But maybe if you shorten it it could become common usage that folks would understand.

Hmmm...

"Spectrumite"?

"Spectrumaniac" ?

"Autistiates".

I use both terms interchangeably. It honestly does not matter to me which term is used, though I think autistic is used more frequently. I think one of my favorite novels, Speed of Dark by Elizabeth Moon, is a perfect example of both "autistic" and "autist" being used in a literary work.

@naturalplastic
Do you even care to read what I write about the damn suffixes or do you ignore any of the points people make?

-ism correlates to -ist, whereas -ia and -es correlate to -ic

Also -ism is a suffix that forms the abstract nouns for actions, STATES, CONDITIONS and doctrines, which when describing the person who performs the action, has the state or condition, or follows the doctrine, turns into -ist. Whereas the adjectives gain the -istic suffix for people or -ic for things. Examples: The man is an academist. His profession is academic.

Autism, autist, autistic
Narcissism, narcissist, narcissistic
Nihilism, nihilist, nihilistic
Theism, theist, theistic

I got a degree in linguistics. Don't act all smart when you don't even mind to differentiate between formal ("proper") and colloquial language. And most actual dictionaries add whether a term is colloquial or formal.

Equally correct. I prefer to use autist, aspie and autism.

I've only ever heard the term autist used as a derogatory word. That's why I don't personally use it, since I think it's largely just used by people who are attempting to be offensive.

I believe the correct term is Autistic because "autist" sounds like an English bloke trying to say "artist." Kind of funny really... (no offense mates, I'm half English myself!)

I have no preference rather, I simply acknowledge others as humans & enlightened.

I agree 100%.

Apart from Wolfram87's "autistiates," which I enjoy, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is the best source for American-English. The terms in question are described by the MWD thusly:

autist
noun au·tist \ ˈȯ-ˌtist \
: a person affected with autism : autistic

autistic
adjective au·tis·tic \ ȯ-ˈti-stik \
: of, relating to, or marked by autism or autism spectrum disorder
autistic behavior
autistic children

Alternatively, the Oxford English Dictionary is the best source for British-English. While I tried the OED references, they were available under subscription only. However, I found that the Oxford Dictionaries offer derivative definitions. The terms in question are described by the OD thusly:

autistic
autistic/ɔːˈtɪstɪk/
adjective
Relating to or affected by autism.
noun
A person affected by autism.

So, the MWD defines "autist" as a noun and "autistic" as an adjective. But, the OD defines "autistic" as a noun and adjective.

I suppose the deciding factor is personal preference.

I read it thoroughly.

Nihilism, and theism, are not analogous because they are creeds/philosophies and not involuntary medical conditions.

.

A person who adheres to Roman Catholicism is not a "Catholist". They are a "Catholic". So even by your own "logic" (that creeds are a proper linguistic analog to involuntary medical conditions) it doesn't follow. Or not on certain words.

Now it is true that a person who espouses Communism is a "Communist", but such a person studies, and activily adheres to, and advocate Communism. Its not a medical condition, like autism, that they are stuck with involuntarily. So though Communism is comparable to Catholicism (both are creeds) it is not analogous to autism (which a condition and not a creed).

There is a medical condition called "rheumatism". But would you call a person afflicted with rheumatism a "rhumatist"? I doubt that you would.

The only example you put forth that seems right is "narcissist". A person can be officially diagnosed as having narcissism. And such folks are indeed called "narcissists". But even then there is implication that they do it actively. They actively perfect and pursue their narcissism like a profession.

Indeed, you seem to have rather accurately identified the connotation that the -ist ending carries. Namely, that it suggests someone who has adopted the concept in question as a creed or philosophy of life. That is indeed the case with narcissist, as you say. And so far, I think the closest-seeming parallel that has been suggested to the case of autism is your example of rheumatism, and the clear absurdity of speaking of a "rheumatist."

I suppose another example would be someone who is agoraphobic; one would not, I think, refer to them as an agoraphobist.

An interesting one is alcoholic, where it has been long-established as being a noun to describe someone with alcoholism, as well as being an adjective. And no one, as far as I am aware, would refer to such a person as an alcoholist.

So I agree with you, that the -ist ending seems to be reserved for the case of a creed or a defining lifestyle choice. Whether the word with an -ic ending, in the case of a condition such as a medical condition, can properly be used as a noun would seem to be largely a case by case question of usage. Alcoholic would seem to be very well established as a noun as well as an adjective. Autistic, much less so.

I personally can't see what is wrong with saying the person has autism, or is autistic; just as one might speak of their rheumatism.