The right words in the right order.

Absolutely. And the world does not need more euphemisms, especially in the realm of mental ill health.

I think people are looking for euphemisms rather than synonyms because it's hard to talk about stuff sometimes and not have people run a mile.  I am quite open in describing my problems - I often just come out and say that I have schizoaffective disorder, but if someone said they had mental health issues, I would know what they meant as you aren't going to have issues with the fact that you are just the right amount of happy and content but I suppose that just saying "I have mental health" could mean anything - but the meaning can usually be sought from the other info given.  I have seen posts on forums where people talk about people with serious mental health issues as though they can't belong to communities like this (not sure if I belong here yet or not) - so maybe people try to give the impression that their struggles are milder so that they don't become rejected. Your opinion is as valid as mine though - just thought I would describe it from my perspective.

I'm going to use language that is suitable for me and what I'm comfortable with. This has nothing to do with winning and losing. Just like some people are fine with swearing, others are not. If you'd like more descriptive language because you find the term mental health to be too vague for you, you can choose to add qualifiers if you'd like to. I just described my reasoning for choosing not to, but you don't have to agree with it. 

Not sure The Roma should be used as a model for best practice on how to encourage communities to discuss mental ill-health.

The Roma are but one example from many other ethnicities and cultures from and all over the world that require similar and dissimilar models for best practice socially or officially ~ rather than just one, as would be discriminatory.

They might also want to introduce education on the benefits of trust, respect and honesty in interpersonal relationships. 

That is what "you" want and rejecting what the Roma and other traditional ethnicities and cultures require ~ does not help build trust and respect but more as such breaks it down, and we are not the only minority in the United Kingdom that is protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

If it is indeed true that the existence of drug addiction is denied, social acceptability  is bestowed upon alcohol abuse and victims of rape and domestic violence are stigmatised, then I'd say, with great certainty, that huge numbers of them would definitely benefit from less ambiguity and more clarity (and education) on how to use direct language to talk about good and bad mental health.

The reason

“mental health” [unquote] is used as a universal descriptor, is because it covers or conveys any state of health involving being ill to being well ~ and the reason illness is treated by every culture as being at very least a private or a confidential matter; is because at very best some people really do not appreciate being made a fuss of or being a bother, or at very worst being treated as if they are an infection risk (i.e., unclean) and getting avoided (social distancing) or else getting attacked (social isolation) and even killed (social cleansing).

Thus as stated before ~ 'more subtlety' and 'less bluntness' is required in order not to upset or anger people in communities, particularly if patients are to be assisted in coming to terms with their repressed emotions and thereby resolve their depressive feelings or also their suicidal thoughts ~ which can be done without addressing or identifying the actual cause itself, as patients learn to deal with it themselves whilst they are guided to deal with the lesser issues involved with the complexity of the initial trauma ~ if there is one, as it may just be a build up of backlogged lesser issues.

But, Deep, I fear we have moved away from the points in my original post, which were not looking for explanations for why people use language incorrectly and without precision around mental ill-health.

Not quite as I am not arguing for another perspective in order to move away from yours, but I am explaining the adjacent social factors involved with our perspectives together on mental health issues ~ and their required identification or not in therapeutic or social settings.

So it is not so much about using language correctly in the grammatical sense as you seem to be suggesting, but about using it more accordingly or appropriately in the psychosocial sense ~ for the 'individual' patient or sufferer themselves, whether they happen to be more grammatically or colloquially inclined, or not.

These are already clear. It is simply an attempt to continue to sustain the taboo status surrounding serious mental disorders, which, sadly, still pervades our society, serving only to prevent us from researching and providing the proper treatments for mental health disorders as well as eradicating the associated shame and guilt by those who experience them.

That is not 'simply' the case, but a part of which, especially when considering that going direct to the source of a mental health issue and identifying it ~ is abusive if the patient is hypersensitive and defensive about their problem, or is not yet ready to cope with issues that have been unconsciously suppressed in order to maintain the functionality of their body-mind relationship, and hence therefore the inferential 'beating-around-the-bush' methodology being required.

Essentially it seems you are suggesting the opposite of what the vast majority of the population find most pragmatic ~ for 'their' sense and sensibilities, and that you want that made universally pragmatic for you and those who as a proportional few will agree with you.

The difficulty with this being so, is that you would as if be arguing that a cuboid is a square whilst others are aware of also another square and four more rectangles as sides too, as an analogy for your idea of this subject being simple and H and I explaining the integral complexities involved.

The basic premise of the post dealt with the semantic accuracy of people who use mental health as a proxy for mental illness.

An example of what semantics involve is for instance someone stating, "Neigh, lads and lasses!" and another stating "No, boys and girls!" ~ with neither person being more or less accurate about what they are actually referring to, it is just the case that the semantic differences involve different areas of the country and different variants of speech pattern.

So in public as being one area of social interaction people are more in favour of talking about ‘mental health’ in general terms with no one needing to go into detail or even having to talk about their physical or mental health condition at all ~ as talking or thinking about health problems can make them worse for some, especially if they are struggling with them on a continual basis and are wholly and solely focused on being healthy, just so that in some cases they can live a little more or if not a bit longer on positive ideation.

In other instances it is healthier for some not to use negative or positive ideation as every up brings a down in terms of using energy and getting tired, or being enthusiastic and getting depressed, so neutral ideation can be more effective for those who are prone to high and low intensity moods and or energetic peaks and troughs ~ 'treading the path of the middle way' and all that.

It's inaccurate, nonsensical and plain foolish.

To you it may as such be, but for the vast majority of people they understand and comprehend it's relevance without having to think much about it or even at all, just as there are those that do, and those that can't.

We know why they do it.

I am not so sure 'We' do ~ as you have not been able to make sense of the explanations that Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia  and I have been giving you. 

I say that we should encourage them to stop doing it.

When people make problematic statements I tend to address the irregularities involved with them to some extent ~ as in terms of being learning experiences rather than as such an ultimatum of any sort, except of course when it comes to people being hostile or offensive to anyone and then it's community rules reminders or thereafter moderation time and all that.

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia said:

"Are you mentally ill or something?"

So the bullies win? We change our language to accommodate their bullying. Makes perfect sense.

You can use language in a that you're comfortable with. If you want to use qualifiers to describe your own mental health, then by all means do so. 

I've stated this earlier, but people have used the term mental illness in negative ways when describing someone else, to bully and harrass them in the past "Are you mentally ill or something?" This is why I prefer to use the term mental health, and not everyone is comfortable with talking about their mental health condition publically.  

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia said:

I just use the term mental health, and if I was asking about someone's mental health, I would not use qualifiers, because heck if I know if that person has poor or ill mental health, unless they decide to tell me what's going on in their life. I can't just assume the status of their mental health, because I don't have the same mind as they do. I wouldn't know unless they've told me.

Your reply makes no sense to me, I'm afraid.  It would appear you have your won story about mental illness and mental health going on and you've wrapped yourself up in some imagined world where it's not okay to talk about mental illness for fear of offending people. But we've strayed far from the original topic of the post.

These are two grammatically correct English sentences:

I'm 35 and I have bipolar disorder.
I'm 35 and I have mental health. 

They are not equivalent in meaning. The second half of the second sentence although syntactically correct, it is semantically redundant without a qualifier. Unless, the speaker is making a declarative statement that they have a mind and that their mind has the capacity for health, which is generally agreed to be the case for all humans. 

Similarly,

We talked for a while about his bipolar disorder.
We talked for a while about his mental health.

The second of these two sentences is not an equivalent for the first one either. The second is a general statement. We talked about all manner of things relating to his state of mind, healthy or otherwise. 

Lastly,

How is the new treatment for your bipolar disorder working out?
How is the new treatment for your mental health working out?

Here again, the second sentence is at best vague, and at worst deliberately evasive. I take many treatments for a number of mental health disorders and I also practice yoga and mindful breathing. Which are you asking about? 

We all understand why people dumb down their language, but, here's the deal: they're not helping anyone by doing it (quite the opposite, they're perpetuating guilt, shame and awkwardness). Not only that,  but it's childish and silly too. If you're unable to communicate directly with someone about their mental illness without struggling with your own sensitivity and/or dumbing down your language so as not to offend them (I don't know anyone who is offended by addressing their mental ill health directly, by the way) then perhaps these are conversations you shouldn't actually be having with them in the first place and would be better sticking to topics more appropriate to the degree of closeness in your relationship.

Not sure The Roma should be used as a model for best practice on how to encourage communities to discuss mental ill-health. If it is indeed true that the existence of drug addiction is denied, social acceptability  is bestowed upon alcohol abuse and victims of rape and domestic violence are stigmatised, then I'd say, with great certainty, that huge numbers of them would definitely benefit from less ambiguity and more clarity (and education) on how to use direct language to talk about good and bad mental health. They might also want to introduce education on the benefits of trust, respect and honesty in interpersonal relationships. 

But, Deep, I fear we have moved away from the points in my original post, which were not looking for explanations for why people use language incorrectly and without precision around mental ill-health. These are already clear. It is simply an attempt to continue to sustain the taboo status surrounding serious mental disorders, which, sadly, still pervades our society, serving only to prevent us from researching and providing the proper treatments for mental health disorders as well as eradicating the associated shame and guilt by those who experience them.

The basic premise of the post dealt with the semantic accuracy of people who use mental health as a proxy for mental illness. It's inaccurate, nonsensical and plain foolish. We know why they do it. I say that we should encourage them to stop doing it.

Deepthought said:

It is inferential in that the person knows how they are feeling in terms of their mental health, and any negative status is not enhanced in terms of being triggered or stimulated ~ or else advertised by way of being or imagined as being overheard.

Verbal chess is very much a game that neurotypicals delight in playing with one another. I can't speak for every autistic person, of course, but for me, direct questions are much easier to understand. If I were to break my leg, it would be very strange if someone were to try and avoid directly mentioning my broken leg by pointing to it and asking me how my physical health was.

Less ambiguity, more clarity. 

Well it is not about 'verbal chess' (manipulative sophistry) but accepted norms or unspoken rules for those that have an accordance with or to them ~ where ambiguity to you equates as refined subtlety to some and where clarity to you equates as defined crudeness or insulting rudeness to others, such as for instance the Roma:

Roma and Health

General Health Attitudes

Health is considered an ‘unclean’ subject, often not to be discussed even with closest family members. Roma who become health professionals or work in other health-related jobs – such as health advocacy or interpreting –can be treated as unclean and ostracised from the rest of the community. It is important to be sensitive to Roma cultural expectations when discussing health-related subjects.

Some examples of health-related taboos you may encounter in your work with Roma include:

> Anything related to female sexual or gynaecological health is considered an unclean subject/object and is to be discussed only amongst females.

> Health-related issuesare not traditionally discussed in groups of Roma where the age gap is greater than 10 years.

Attitudes to Mental Health

Mental health is treated as a greater taboo than any other health problem and is rarely discussed amongst the Roma.

Communicating about Mental Health

> Roma may talk about being sad or feeling down in relation to specific problems in their lives. In these cases it is acceptable to say that someone is depressed.

> Some may talk about ‘problems with the head’ or ‘being crazy’ instead of naming specific mental health conditions.

> Roma youth tend to be more aware of mental health problems than older members of the community, yet some are still reluctant to discuss private matters.

The Social Context of Mental Health Issues

> There is a strong belief that mental health problems can be passed on genetically without taking into account environmental factors. This can jeopardise the prospect of marriage, affecting relations within the family unit and Roma community.

> Drug addiction is a controversial subject and Roma community members often deny its existence within their clan, tribe or family.

> Alcohol abuse is often viewed as a social activity and not treated as an addiction.

> Victims of rape and domestic violence are often stigmatised; they rarely discuss their traumas.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/roma-info-leaflet.pdf

Obviously for you such subtlety in the given context is not personally relevant or socially accordant ~ whilst in the more technical or pedantic sense inferential language is in fact easier to 'understand' as it involves less linguistic structures to incorporate intellectually, with the actual problem then being more an issue of 'comprehension'.

So for example people may understand that French, Greek or German is being spoken; but only comprehend that which is spoken in English. It is just that the word 'understanding' has become synonymous with the word 'comprehension' ~ as it has gotten increasingly more over time linguistically displaced and replaced colloquially.  

I just use the term mental health, and if I was asking about someone's mental health, I would not use qualifiers, because heck if I know if that person has poor or ill mental health, unless they decide to tell me what's going on in their life. I can't just assume the status of their mental health, because I don't have the same mind as they do. I wouldn't know unless they've told me.

And I don't even know if that person would like me describing their mental health for them, as being "poor," or "unwell," or "ill," because they might find that I'm being judgemental and offensive, and that's my reason for not doing it.

But if I was talking about my own mental health, I would use all the qualifiers and descriptive words as much as I'd like to, because I'm just describing myself. 

Deepthought said:

It is inferential in that the person knows how they are feeling in terms of their mental health, and any negative status is not enhanced in terms of being triggered or stimulated ~ or else advertised by way of being or imagined as being overheard.

Verbal chess is very much a game that neurotypicals delight in playing with one another. I can't speak for every autistic person, of course, but for me, direct questions are much easier to understand. If I were to break my leg, it would be very strange if someone were to try and avoid directly mentioning my broken leg by pointing to it and asking me how my physical health was.

Less ambiguity, more clarity. 

I don't understand. It doesn't mean anything on its own unless you add a qualifier, such as poor, good, or illness, wellness. How do you actually describe their mental illness? What words do you actually use?

It is inferential in that the person knows how they are feeling in terms of their mental health, and any negative status is not enhanced in terms of being triggered or stimulated ~ or else advertised by way of being or imagined as being overheard.

So, "How has your mental health (depression) been since our last discussion?" is more open to interpretation giving the chance of a broader range of responses involving their day, week or whatever else ~ whereas asking directly about a person's depression could involve them getting very upset or even very angry.

 I don't understand. It doesn't mean anything on its own unless you add a qualifier, such as poor, good, or illness, wellness. How do you actually describe their mental illness? What words do you actually use?

Love this! x

I like using the term mental health, because if I refer to someone as being mentally ill by saying "You're mentally ill" or "S/he's mentally ill" it gives off the impression that I am being mean and putting them down, and I suspect that's why people began using the term mental health in the first place, because it's neutral. 

I bought a mug saying 'I am not a pedant.  I am an expert.'

Classic. #actuallyautistic

Pedantry and stubbornness are our autistic superpowers!  Linguistic ignorance is our kryptonite!

To be fair to you, I'm also extremely pedantic about words too. Probably doesn't help that I studied law so I was in a world for a while where I could argue to my heart's content about the interpretation of language. Plus the joys of playing devil's advocate, which is perfect for people like us! Unfortunately the downside is that it can be hard to let go of our views and move on from an argument, so I know I personally make people annoyed by my perceived stubbornness. 

Absolutely, Dawn. I realise that my autistic brain is pedantic when it comes to language use. I insist upon precision! But there are more serious sides to it, as others have pointed out. People with actual mental illnesses have not seen any improvement in their care or treatment as a result of the watering down of the meaning of mental health.

I'm totally with you, Turtle. You make some excellent points. 

That's precisely what has happened. Mental Health has become a ubiquitous term used by all organisations/politicians who want to show that they are concerned about people's 'stress levels' or 'work/life balance'.  It's purely performative. At the same time, the understanding, care and treatment of people with actual mental illness is as dire as ever.  In fact, as you correctly point out, the services available are still wholly inadequate, underfunded and dismally out of date.