Return to Question

So often nowadays one hears people say He was diagnosed with walliballi disease.

Is this grammatically correct? What does a doctor diagnose? My own instinct, supported by the OED is that a doctor diagnoses an illness, or a medical condition - he/she does not diagnose a person.

The OED definition* of the verb, with examples is:

a. trans. To make a diagnosis of (a disease), to distinguish and determine its nature from its symptoms; to recognize and identify by careful observation.

1861 A. Wynter Our Social Bees 339, I was enabled to diagnose the complaint at once.

1877 F. T. Roberts Handbk. Med. (ed. 3) I. 231 Articular rheumatism has also to be diagnosed from the other forms.

1887 Homeop. World 1 Nov. 497, I diagnosed chronic jaundice.

So can it be correct to say He was diagnosed with...?

Would it not be more correct to say:

He was found by diagnosis to have.....

Or what would be an alternative way of saying the same thing?

*It would be less than honest not to include the caveat in the most recent edition of OED: 'This entry has not yet been fully updated (first published 1895)'Had the OP been aware of such caveat he would naturally have included it. It does not appear in the current online edition. And whilst on the subject of 'honesty', have the editors of this post ever actually seen such a caveat in print?

So often nowadays one hears people say He was diagnosed with walliballi disease.

Is this grammatically correct? What does a doctor diagnose? My own instinct, supported by the OED is that a doctor diagnoses an illness, or a medical condition - he/she does not diagnose a person.

The OED definition* of the verb, with examples is:

a. trans. To make a diagnosis of (a disease), to distinguish and determine its nature from its symptoms; to recognize and identify by careful observation.

1861 A. Wynter Our Social Bees 339, I was enabled to diagnose the complaint at once.

1877 F. T. Roberts Handbk. Med. (ed. 3) I. 231 Articular rheumatism has also to be diagnosed from the other forms.

1887 Homeop. World 1 Nov. 497, I diagnosed chronic jaundice.

So can it be correct to say He was diagnosed with...?

Would it not be more correct to say:

He was found by diagnosis to have.....

Or what would be an alternative way of saying the same thing?

*It would be less than honest not to include the caveat in the most recent edition of OED: 'This entry has not yet been fully updated (first published 1895)' (Contributed by Edwin Ashworth)

Had the OP been aware of such caveat he would naturally have included it. It does not appear in the current online edition. And whilst on the subject of 'honesty', have the editors of this post ever actually seen such a caveat in print? (OP's response).

So often nowadays one hears people say He was diagnosed with walliballi disease.

Is this grammatically correct? What does a doctor diagnose? My own instinct, supported by the OED is that a doctor diagnoses an illness, or a medical condition - he/she does not diagnose a person.

The OED definition* of the verb, with examples is:

a. trans. To make a diagnosis of (a disease), to distinguish and determine its nature from its symptoms; to recognize and identify by careful observation.

1861 A. Wynter Our Social Bees 339, I was enabled to diagnose the complaint at once.

1877 F. T. Roberts Handbk. Med. (ed. 3) I. 231 Articular rheumatism has also to be diagnosed from the other forms.

1887 Homeop. World 1 Nov. 497, I diagnosed chronic jaundice.

So can it be correct to say He was diagnosed with...?

Would it not be more correct to say:

He was found by diagnosis to have.....

Or what would be an alternative way of saying the same thing?

*It would be less than honest not to include the caveat in the most recent edition of OED: 'This entry has not yet been fully updated (first published 1895)'.

So often nowadays one hears people say He was diagnosed with walliballi disease.

Is this grammatically correct? What does a doctor diagnose? My own instinct, supported by the OED is that a doctor diagnoses an illness, or a medical condition - he/she does not diagnose a person.

The OED definition* of the verb, with examples is:

a. trans. To make a diagnosis of (a disease), to distinguish and determine its nature from its symptoms; to recognize and identify by careful observation.

1861 A. Wynter Our Social Bees 339, I was enabled to diagnose the complaint at once.

1877 F. T. Roberts Handbk. Med. (ed. 3) I. 231 Articular rheumatism has also to be diagnosed from the other forms.

1887 Homeop. World 1 Nov. 497, I diagnosed chronic jaundice.

So can it be correct to say He was diagnosed with...?

Would it not be more correct to say:

He was found by diagnosis to have.....

Or what would be an alternative way of saying the same thing?

*It would be less than honest not to include the caveat in the most recent edition of OED: 'This entry has not yet been fully updated (first published 1895)'Had the OP been aware of such caveat he would naturally have included it. It does not appear in the current online edition. And whilst on the subject of 'honesty', have the editors of this post ever actually seen such a caveat in print?

So often nowadays one hears people say He was diagnosed with walliballi disease.

Is this grammatically correct? What does a doctor diagnose? My own instinct, supported by the OED is that a doctor diagnoses an illness, or a medical condition - he/she does not diagnose a person.

The OED definition of the verb, with examples is:

a. trans. To make a diagnosis of (a disease), to distinguish and determine its nature from its symptoms; to recognize and identify by careful observation.

1861 A. Wynter Our Social Bees 339, I was enabled to diagnose the complaint at once.

1877 F. T. Roberts Handbk. Med. (ed. 3) I. 231 Articular rheumatism has also to be diagnosed from the other forms.

1887 Homeop. World 1 Nov. 497, I diagnosed chronic jaundice.

So can it be correct to say He was diagnosed with...?

Would it not be more correct to say:

He was found by diagnosis to have.....

Or what would be an alternative way of saying the same thing?

So often nowadays one hears people say He was diagnosed with walliballi disease.

Is this grammatically correct? What does a doctor diagnose? My own instinct, supported by the OED is that a doctor diagnoses an illness, or a medical condition - he/she does not diagnose a person.

The OED definition* of the verb, with examples is:

a. trans. To make a diagnosis of (a disease), to distinguish and determine its nature from its symptoms; to recognize and identify by careful observation.

1861 A. Wynter Our Social Bees 339, I was enabled to diagnose the complaint at once.

1877 F. T. Roberts Handbk. Med. (ed. 3) I. 231 Articular rheumatism has also to be diagnosed from the other forms.

1887 Homeop. World 1 Nov. 497, I diagnosed chronic jaundice.

So can it be correct to say He was diagnosed with...?

Would it not be more correct to say:

He was found by diagnosis to have.....

Or what would be an alternative way of saying the same thing?

*It would be less than honest not to include the caveat in the most recent edition of OED: 'This entry has not yet been fully updated (first published 1895)'.