Translation:We are employing disabled people.
22 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
....Shouldn't every workplace though? Or, is the fictional employer in this question special? Do workplaces in Poland have the option to just never hire disabled workers? (I honestly want to know. This sentence sounds like it's a special/unique thing to hire us.)
And as a disabled person I'm actually not a fan of 'people first' language -- it promotes distancing from disability like it's shameful. I'd also call myself "Polish" and "Jewish", not "a person with Polishness and Jewishness". People can be trusted to also notice other aspects of me, and I am always disabled, kind of like I'm always Polish and Jewish. (Though I agree that "the disabled" is a problematic, dehumanising phrasing.)
I would never invalidate your feelings about this subject, and I understand your interpretation of the impacts of the grammar on the understanding of the context. I would also point out, however, that a language learner's job should probably first be to communicate effectively on a subject before attempting to reinterpret the way that it's used. Since people on Duolingo are here to learn how the language is used, I don't think this is the best forum for the discussion about implications. To draw a parallel, I take big issue with the grammatical use of gender in so many languages. Its use in nonbiologically based grammar feels like unnecessary complication, and its use in specifying the gender of people feels like a problem to me (though that's a long discussion that I don't care to get into). Interestingly, some people in the hispanic world are attempting to remove the use of gender in description of people with the idea of "latinx". Anyway, I'd imagine it takes a long time and a lot of practice with a language, and probably some level of fluency, to get involved in the conversations about why and how things about the language should be changed. It reminds me of an idea. “Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.” - Dalai Lama XIV
I agree that it's highly unlikely but don't think it's wrong. 'All the disabled people in the pool already discussed,' or similar. 'the disabled people' isn't going to be the main answer but I don't think there's any harm in accepting it as an alternative answer.
Having worked on disability issues, best to put the people first, not focus on the disability. It would be great if "people with disabilities" could be accepted. Yes, people do use "disabled people", or even worse "the disabled" but its better to recognize people as people, not a disability. Could it be accepted?
I don't want to say anything against accepting "people with disabilities", but does it really help anyone to remove adjectives from our languages and substitute them by nouns? To continue this, we could say "people without wealth" instead of "poor people", but I don't believe it would make them feel better...
It took me literally ten seconds: