The explanation I heard once was that the root of "handicap" came from "hand in the cap." While dictionary.com supports this as the root, the explanation was that "hand in cap" was synonymous with having one's hand and cap out in order to beg for alms.

However, the dictionary defintion points to a more benign origin--going back to a game in which a hand was literally in a cap.

Frankly, I don't think either "handicapped" or "disabled" is perjorative--and I get rather annoyed when a perfectly good word is discouraged because someone has now decreed the word is not politically correct.

I personally prefer handicrooked but I'm really just miffed at the waste of 5 parking spots in an overfull lot.

The "cap in hand" etymology is spurious, as I mention here.

I prefer "handicapped" with its connotation of having to an carry extra burden.
"Disabled" sounds like you can't do anything. To be sure, some handicaps are so severe that they are disabling but sometimes society imposes disabilities on the handicapped.

Maybe we should just give up on a one-word label for millions of people with dozens of different conditions?

It's all magical thinking of the "the name has power over the thing" sort. Come up with an entirely new word for it - call it "moppiated" - and in a little while people who don't like the reality will want to change the symbol, again.

There's an interesting post on languagehat.com for February 1, defending the occasional replacement of old terms for people who get dumped on by new ones. I'm only partly convinced, but it's an interesting and thoughtful take on the subject.

Proper PC terminology is an endless game of gotcha played by kneebiters. I say endless because my experience has been that sooner or later the rules of the game come full circle and the absolutely unacceptable term, e.g., Black, becomes the most acceptable; and then, of course, the cycle recurrs.

I work in a PC environment and love to shock and annoy the powers-that-be by using the "totally unacceptable" terminology of two years ago and then defending myself with an official memorandum from days of yore that absolutely requires use of the currently unacceptable terminology.

As someone who is disabled (as defined by the ADA) but certainly not to the extent of others, I wonder how much of the current terminology in this specific context (as opposed to black vs. African-American) is due to the fact that the Americans with Disabilities Act made extensive use of the word "disability" to define the class of people who required "reasonable accommodations"? Had the ADA used the term "handicap" for example, would it have continued to enjoy widespread usage? I am no student of the history of disabilities or the ADA, but it seems to me that perhaps the ADA legitimized usage of that word or at least made it a convenient and acceptable way to refer to those with significant physical limitations. As between handicap and disability, however, I must confess that I personally don't care which term is used, though others may feel differently.

David Stras: I think the fact that it's the ADA rather than the AHA was an effect of this phenomenon rather than a cause. The use of "disabilities" rather than "handicaps" was the result of prodding by the disability activists who were pushing for the ADA.

I have been "corrected" by disability rights advocates for referring to disabled veterans. I find this amusing because although the ADA protects "people with disabilities," various acts establishing a legal classification and providing benefits for veterans who have service-connected disabilities use the term of art, "disabled veterans." It actually means something quite different from the ADA's definition of an individual with a disability; a former servicemember may have some impairment that does not rise to the level of a disability under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act of 1974, but which is treated as a disability under laws governing active duty servicemembers and veterans. For example a servicemember who has a bum knee may actually be a 'disabled veteran,' even though he is not impaired in a major life activity.

And so the Gramscian assault on language continues.

I will ask again - why do we use the term "political correctness." Doesn't this concede to advocates of self-censorship that lawful thoughts and speech are necessarily wrong?

I like the term George's boss used in "Seinfeld": "differently advantaged."

Al Maviva - you can blame lawyers for that distinction, not the PC police.

The only PC word-choice that ever really bothered me was when somebody insisted that I refer to gypsies as "Roma". I'm at least somewhat aware of the history of those people who call now want to be called "Roma", but the point is that "gypsy" applies to alot of people in many different countries who are definitely NOT from that group. Similarly, some people suggest that eskimo is verboten, and that Inuit is preferable, even though not all people described by the term eskimo are actually Inuits.

I definitely agree with another poster that connotations are hard to argue with. I had a professor for european history in college who, in discussing the reformation, referred to certain elements of Catholic theology as "the cult of Mary and the Saints". Although "cult" might mean one thing as a technical term, try referring to it that way in front of a Catholic and see what happens.

There isn't even consensus about single categories of disability/handicap, much less the overall term. Just look at deaf, Deaf, hard of hearing, hearing impaired, and related controversies.

"Disability" seems like a perfectly reasonable term for any of a wide range of functional limitations, but then so does "handicap."

I get the point of not saying "the handicapped," leaving out the "people" part, but I'm not sure that there's a valid distinction between "disabled people" and "people with disabilities." I mean, we all know how adjectives work in English, and we can all spot the noun even if it doesn't come first.

How did we get through this many posts without the term "special" being thrown about? Now "special needs" is a recent term that covers a lot of good ground without insulting the intelligence of the audience. Then there is always the phrase "he has issues" which can cover whatever you need as well.

Then there is the Mark Zupan approach, author of "Gimp" and who was in the Murderball documentary from a few months back, who wrote:

"I hate being called handicapped. Fucking hate it. Call me a cripple or, if you want to be polite, call me disabled."

He goes on to talk about how handicapped in sports gives someone an advantage that he does not want to have to rely on.

Oh, and since this blog is often the host of etymological discussions, does anyone know anything about the origin of the term "politically correct"? Was it always pejorative?

Now "special needs" is a recent term that covers a lot of good ground without insulting the intelligence of the audience.

In the mid-90s the military started using 'exceptional' to mean dependant kids who with mental or physical handicaps.

The term became one used just like 'tard' in the military schools by the kids fairly quickly.

There is no term that will not become an insult.

I think "Oriental" was a normal, uncontroversial word in the US as recently as the early 80s. The switch to "Asian" is new, and the reasoning I've heard is that it provides an absolute point of geographic reference rather than a relative one. "East" implies a European perspective. Which is an odd consideration in a North American discussion, because from here you get to China by going west.

The new problem is that "Asian" refers to eastern Asia in the US, but to southern Asia in England. And then there's the neverending problem of how to refer to people from western Asia...

As for "politically correct," I first heard it as a joking term that people on the left used about each other. People who got into intense debates about Marxism at parties would be told to "stop being so politically correct and dance." This was long before the right took up the term.

Now "special needs" is a recent term that covers a lot of good ground without insulting the intelligence of the audience.

Not so recent, although age is relative. About 25 years ago I described my grade school kid as having special needs to his school teacher. Pretty quickly I realized that she understood it as something completely different (I was not well versed in PC/official terminology). Turned out he really needed a program for "gifted and talented". This latter term was fine back then, but I wonder if it's been discarted as non-PC in the opposite direction, as I have not heard it in quite a while.

Years ago a paraplegic friend began referring to everyone else as "TABs", for "Temporarily Able Bodied". That formulation has benefit of being undeniably true whether the recipient of the name chooses to believe it or not.

One that's allways confused me is the rejection of steward/stewardess by flight persons in favor of the more entymologically demeaning "attendant".

And when was the last time you heard anyone say "aviatrix"?

"Guy" is already edging towards gender neutrality, at least in the plural. Groups made up entirely of women are now "you guys."

Don't forget that the actresses now want to be called actors. The only fun part about award shows these days is to see whether any presenter actually uses the phrase "the winner is" instead of "the award goes to".

Anyone who is around kids in middle and high school is already hearing "He's went all bipolar on us" and "she's so OCD" already.


And I beleive Maoists at all kinds of parties were early on referreing to "Politically Correct" views, leading the others to tell them to shut up and dance, as above.

In my work I deal with ethnic/racial subgroups a lot. Professionally, I deal with this issue simply: I use the term of art specified in legislation or code. Sometimes people complain, but generally my explanation shuts them up.

I live in Maryland, and until 1922, the state agency which is now the "Department of Health and Mental Hygiene" was called the "State Lunacy Commission."

No matter what word you choose, the PC crowd will eventually want it replaced, because eventually the stigma of the state being described will attach. Being disabled will always be a non-optimum condition, until the day that people are lining up for the privilege of being paralyzed or blinded, and thus the visceral emotional reaction to the CONCEPT will never go away, no many how many times the word is replaced.

Bill Veeck Jr., in his [and Ed Linn's] book "Veeck, as in Wreck," wrote that he preferred the word 'crippled'. I forget the reasons he disliked the alternatives.

Wasn't "physically challenged" touted to be politically correct and acceptable way ?

This is an interesting discussion of an ongoing problem, with the absence of any perfect solution. I work with many people with disabilities, both mental and physical, and I am the parent of a son with mental retardation. Any term, however neutral sounding, may become stigmatized over time and require "replacement" in the language. I don't regard that as a big deal, as our language is constantly evolving.

In general, the term "disability" has replaced "handicap" over the last few years. My son is now often referred to as a person with "intellectual disabilities" instead of MR. I don't know if this term is better or not, but it does reflect an attempt to treat people with respect -- which is a good thing.

Although it is likely that the origin of handicap as "cap in hand" is not correct (as has already been noted in previous posts), I have heard several people with disabilities complain passionately about how insulting it is to them to be labeled as beggars by use of that term. Rather than arguing with them about the correct origins of the word, I prefer to use whatever term they feel most comfortable with. This can be tricky, though, since some people with physical disabilities still prefer to be called "crippled" while most others prefer the use of the term "physical disabilities." It is fairly universal, though, to find that people with disabilities prefer "people first" language (eg, preferring "child with Down Syndrome" to a "Down's child"). This emphasizes respect for their status as a person rather than emphasizing the disability.

I often remind people that almost everyone who lives long enough will develop some type of disability. It's just a fact of life that most of us will have to deal with at some time and in some way. So what do you or you loved ones want to be called?