"Accessible" - and modern current usage

[eMeS]

I hate the way we now have to use the word "accessible" because it got into UK law some years ago. I think it's forced on us an ugly way of using our native language, English, but can't really offer anything better. I think the problem is that it's taken a word which was one form of speech, and forced it into another area. Not being a linguist I don't know the correct terms, but I suspect that's why I have a problem with "accessible" as now commonly used. (Having done a little research before posting, I wonder if our bureaucrats mistranslated something from the EU?)

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The way in which new adjectives are often created in English language by simply adding "-ible" or "-able" to an existing verb, can result in some rather clunky words, but as you hint at, what better alternative might be used here?

 

[John Webb]

'Accessible' has been around for decades - it's in my Concise Oxford Dictionary which is approaching 50 years of age! The definition reads "Able to be reached, entered, influenced or understood."

 

[edwin_m]

It used to mean people being able to get to somewhere. It often now means that people with a wide range of mental and physical abilities can get to or use a facility. This dual use can cause confusion.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Does replacing "accessible" with "capable of being accessed" work satisfactorily?

 

[MotCO]

Likewise 'disabled toilets' gave me the impression that the toilets were out of use. Accessible is a much better term, which means anyone can access them.

 

[MotCO]

Does replacing "accessible" with "capable of being accessed" work satisfactorily?

Not really, since it does not imply that all can access it, only that some who are capable can.

 

[eMeS]

I think the last few postings above are understanding my unease at the current usage.

 

[Tetchytyke]

think the problem is that it's taken a word which was one form of speech, and forced it into another area.

It's always meant roughly what it does now- as @John Webb says. It's not a neologism.

It used to mean people being able to get to somewhere.

It still does, really. It's just the scope of the word people is wider than it used to be.

I agree with the OP it's a slightly clunky word, but lots of well-established words are.

 

[Busaholic]

'Abuse' is another word now that gets bandied around perhaps too much, often with connotations of physical or sexual violence. the word 'misuse' might be more appropriate in some cases, e.g. 'abuse of power.' Just a thought, I don't have strong opinions on the subject, just like Marmite, which I can take or leave.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Does replacing "accessible" with "capable of being accessed" work satisfactorily?

Not really, since it does not imply that all can access it, only that some who are capable can.

Don't you just love the various nuances of the English language?!

I would have thought that the "capable of being accessed" refers to whatever it is that is being accessed. In a railway context, this might mean a platform, or a train carriage.

If it (for example, the platform) is not capable of being accessed by some, then you can't then claim that it's (fully) accessible.

For example, an island platform that can only be accessed using a flight of stairs.

That's my opinion, but happy to defer to anyone with superior wisdom than me on this particular subject.

 

[MotCO]

Don't you just love the various nuances of the English language?!

I would have thought that the "capable of being accessed" refers to whatever it is that is being accessed. In a railway context, this might mean a platform, or a train carriage.

If it (for example, the platform) is not capable of being accessed by some, then you can't then claim that it's (fully) accessible.

For example, an island platform that can only be accessed using a flight of stairs.

That's my opinion, but happy to defer to anyone with superior wisdom than me on this particular subject.

Maybe 'capable of being accessed by all' would fit the bill?

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe 'capable of being accessed by all' would fit the bill?

But there are some people (eg bedridden) who would never be able to access most facilities. Essentially we take wheelchair users, or increasingly now mobility scooter users, as the "worst case" for physical access, although we try also to make provision for those with visual, hearing or mental impairments.

 

[PupCuff]

"Accessible" seems a perfectly agreeable word in English to me. If something is accessible, it means that it is able to be accessed.

'A causeway and no safe jetty meant that the lighthouse was only accessible at low tide'

That could then be further clarified,

'The causeway to the lighthouse was inaccessible to vehicles even at low tide and required the keeper to reach it on foot.'

'The uneven nature of the causeway meant it was inaccessible to those of reduced mobility or in wheelchairs.'

and when some money becomes available,

'The lighthouse company upgraded the causeway to a more robust surface, making it accessible to vehicles, as well as those with reduced mobility and wheelchair users.'


In the context of disability, something which is accessible in one respect could be inaccessible in another. A company who delivered their services only by phone would clearly be accessible for someone who had a sight impairment. However it would be inaccessible to those whose disability meant they could not use phone. Good practice for organisations is to produce some kind of published policy on this kind of thing which sets out what reasonable adjustments are able to be made to allow the individual with the disability to indicate which will best meet their needs. "Fully accessible" is, in my view, a misnomer, as there will generally be something which is inaccessible to someone.