> Symptoms cannot be seen and do not show up on medical tests. Some examples of symptoms are headache, fatigue, nausea, and pain.
https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-term...
It has nothing to do with the original meanings of the words "symptom" and "sign" in English and other languages (where "symptom" is any sign of a disease, while "sign" is any sign of anything).
The standard medical terminology in other languages is "subjective symptoms" and "objective symptoms".
In my opinion, whoever has chosen these artificial and arbitrary meanings for the words "symptom" and "sign", both words being widespread in many European languages, where they are used with their old meanings, has made a very bad choice. Someone who wants new words should invent them, not change the traditional meanings of other words.
I wonder if this "sign" and "symptom" terminology is common for British English and American English, or it is used only in American English.
> Symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19) in adults can include:
> - a high temperature or shivering (chills) – a high temperature means you feel hot to touch on your chest or back (you do not need to measure your temperature)
As do, slightly implicitly, all four of the UK chief medical officers [2]:
> The individual’s households should also self-isolate for 14 days as per the current guidelines and the individual should stay at home for 7 days, or longer if they still have symptoms other than cough or loss of sense of smell.
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/symptoms/...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-uk-chi...
If you say the meaning of these words are different in other languages, then aren't you translating them incorrectly?
> Someone who wants new words should invent them, not change the traditional meanings of other words.
Language changes over time. The meaning of words can change. Definitions aren't etched into stone.
From what I see from quick search word "symptom" as written here is also present in Czech, Danish, German, Norwegian, Polish and Swedish.
Many other languages has variations (e.g. French's "symptôme" or Latvian's "simptoms").
So that's fine. Medical experts can use the technical meanings in expert discourse, and the vernacular meanings in vernacular discourse.
> The standard medical terminology in other languages is "subjective symptoms" and "objective symptoms".
Brazilian here. We use the term sinais e sintomas, meaning signs and symptoms. Doctors learn these signs in medical semiology classes and through practice in hospitals.
Then they must have spread in USA, and then in some other countries, like Brazil and Norway, which have been mentioned here.
At least France and Germany seem to be among the countries that have kept the traditional terms "objective symptoms" and "subjective symptoms".
Another poster said that "language changes" and this must be accepted. While there are many people who believe this, I do not agree with it. When language changes in order to speak about new things, that is obviously fine. When language changes because someone thinks that the traditional words are not cool any more and they make arbitrary changes in the meanings of the words, that, in my opinion, is lazy and stupid. Every such change in the meaning of the words makes more difficult both the communication with people from distant places, where the meaning changes have not arrived yet, and the understanding of the older writings accumulated during the last centuries, many of which are much more valuable than it is expected by those who read only what was published last year, thinking that the older publications are obsolete. In fact too many recent research papers reinvent things that are decades old, because their authors have not read the old literature.
This change in terminology has been completely random, one could have equally well chosen to use "signs" instead of "subjective symptoms" and "symptoms" instead of "objective symptoms".
So there is no way for someone who has not studied the recent medical terminology to guess what medical doctors mean when they speak about "signs" and "symptoms".
If the author of this terminology would have invented some new words, e.g. "obsyms" and "subsyms", then at least their use would not have caused confusions. Any listeners would have recognized them as unknown words and would have asked for their meaning.
In truth, "language change" (which is in fact language corruption) if often a necessary evil when a mass of "lazy and stupid" people desperately tries to learn something. The net outcome of all that is good, or has been so far.
But it's a different pair of shoes when supposed experts decide to change dictionary definitions on the fly, and in such a confusing manner. They should have known better.
In Norway, doctors will distinguish between (subjective) "symptomer" and (more objective) "tegn" (and "tegn" can be directly translated to "sign") whereas laymen will use "symptomer" for everything
The definition you link is interesting, I'll quote it:
>symptom >(SIMP-tum) >A physical or mental problem that a person experiences that may indicate a disease or condition. Symptoms cannot be seen and do not show up on medical tests. Some examples of symptoms are headache, fatigue, nausea, and pain.
There seems to be an internal inconsistency in defining a symptom as physical if it's not objectively discernible; in what way is it physical? If you know it's a physical aspect of a patient then isn't it objectively observable and and so not a 'symptom' under this narrow definition?
We're going to tie ourselves in knots here for sure.