Conversation

okay serious philological question (TIL new word): why would you need to specify "interabled" when it is almost certainly (if not orders of magnitude) more likely that a couple where at least one partner is disabled would be "interabled" than not
Image
1
Replying to
Yeah, it sucked having flat feet, or polio, or schizophrenia causing a false sense of history, back in the bad old days when you'd have to go on a special dating app to meet someone who also had that. If you had more than one you were pretty much sentenced to loneliness for life.
2
Replying to
i guess i'm just presuming "interabled" is a play off "interracial" which as i am sure you are keenly aware is *un*usual and so the extra designation actually carries some information
1
Replying to
Yeah, I was thinking about that and the conclusion I reached was that people try to apply prefixes like "inter-" and "trans-" to identity types like "abled" & "racial" and while it may pertain to someone's experience it's certainly unusual compared to the analogous prefixed types
1
Replying to
i can't help but think in terms of speech acts rather than formal logic, like any utterance costs something so if you have a word that means P(A)¬P(B) when that is the majority of cases, there must be some other reason to spend the effort than to pick out a minority case
1