The right words in the right order.

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 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?

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?

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.

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.

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.  

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.