Zompist Bboard Again

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 1:27 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 1:11 pm Conversely, someone can refer to their child as a their (adult) child even if they are 18 or over in modern English.

Of course. The other meaning of "child", aside from "young person", is "first generation descendant". That wasn't really my question, though.

I would say that 'child' does imply that someone is a young child as opposed to a teenager outside of legal contexts or the sense I gave before.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 2:04 pm

I would say that 'child' does imply that someone is a young child as opposed to a teenager outside of legal contexts or the sense I gave before.

Interesting. I had the impression that in US public discourse, at least, the meaning provided by the legal definition had completely taken over.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 2:04 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 1:27 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 1:11 pm Conversely, someone can refer to their child as a their (adult) child even if they are 18 or over in modern English.

Of course. The other meaning of "child", aside from "young person", is "first generation descendant". That wasn't really my question, though.

I would say that 'child' does imply that someone is a young child as opposed to a teenager outside of legal contexts or the sense I gave before.

I would agree with this, the fact that the term 'teenager' exists to generally describe those who are ages 13-19 disqualifies the use of the word 'child' for the same age group, in my mind, but maybe I'm a bit biased because I am a teenager and don't relish in the idea of being referred to as a child.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 12:41 pm That makes it sound to me as if there used to be colloquial variants of English in which the meaning of the word "child" was so limited that even someone at thirteen didn't count as a "child" any more. Any information on that?

Words have multiple senses. Merriam-Webster defines "child" thus:

1a. a young person especially between infancy and puberty
b. a person not yet of the age of majority
c. a childlike or childish person
2. a son or daughter of human parents

Note that the last has no age limit at all— you are still someone's child even if you're 70.

You can trace the extension of the meaning here. The original Old English meaning was "fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person"; it's cognate to Gothic kilþei 'womb'.

(If you're thinking "fetus??", it's still possible to say that a woman is "with child", i.e. pregnant.)

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 2:47 pm
Words have multiple senses. Merriam-Webster defines "child" thus:

1a. a young person especially between infancy and puberty
b. a person not yet of the age of majority
c. a childlike or childish person
2. a son or daughter of human parents

Note that the last has no age limit at all— you are still someone's child even if you're 70.

You can trace the extension of the meaning here. The original Old English meaning was "fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person"; it's cognate to Gothic kilþei 'womb'.

(If you're thinking "fetus??", it's still possible to say that a woman is "with child", i.e. pregnant.)

Thank you! Pedantic note: I'd quibble with the "2." point on Merriam-Webster's list. In a work of fiction, there's no need for the parents to be humans!

The legal terminology does sound a bit weird to me, because I'm used to German legal definitions where "Kind" means someone under 14, and people between their 14th and 18th birthdays are called "Jugendliche" (youths), while the overall term for all people under 18 is "Minderjährige" (minors). Recognizing "youths" in that sense as an intermediate stage between children and adults makes more sense to me than pretending that people in general magically turn from mental toddlers to mentally fully fledged adults at the stroke of midnight at the start of their 18th birthday. That's why, when I'm speaking or writing in English, and I want to talk about all people under 18 as a whole, I tend to default to the term "minor" myself.

In this context, back in the aftermath of the Parkland High Massacre, I heard that one survivor had scathingly indicted US gun policy by saying something like, quoting from memory, "We are children. You are the adults. You should have protected us." Now, when I heard of that, I mostly thought "That's very courageous and eloquent!" But there was also a small part of my brain that thought, "What kind of self-respecting teenager refers to themselves as a 'child'?"

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 2:31 pm Interesting. I had the impression that in US public discourse, at least, the meaning provided by the legal definition had completely taken over.

I suspect its being used for rhetorical effect.

One thing to remember is that the legal meaning of child is quite formal in ModE, and even the word child is pretty formal. In everyday language in ModE I would use kid rather than child, but the two are not entirely synonymous as child when it is used in everyday language has stronger connotations of being a younger child than kid does (and calling someone a child in their presence is more insulting than calling them a kid in much usage).

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:34 pm In everyday language in ModE I would use kid rather than child, but the two are not entirely synonymous as child when it is used in everyday language has stronger connotations of being a younger child than kid does

Hasn't the "Everyone-significantly-younger-than-the-speaker-is-a-kid" thing gotten to the point by now where a 70 year old might well call a 50 year old a "kid"?

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:41 pm Hasn't the "Everyone-significantly-younger-than-the-speaker-is-a-kid" thing gotten to the point by now where a 70 year old might well call a 50 year old a "kid"?

Only jocularly.

In general we call teenagers "teenagers", and if someone is a "child" or "kid" without a qualifiier, they're pre-puberty. Calling high schoolers "children" is usually to emphasize that they need extra protection (from guns, or porn, or whatever). There's nothing exceptional about saying "high school kids" or even "college kids".

There really is a difference in how you see the world at 25 vs. 65. At 25 we feel extremely mature and would bristle at "college kids". Once people have children themselves, even college students seem much less mature than they once did. I don't have kids, so I don't have that attitude, but I can feel that people under 25 are a little, well, unformed.

I typically stop thinking of someone as a “teenager” once they turn 18. I know technically they are still a teenager but legally they are considered an adult.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 7:45 pm I typically stop thinking of someone as a “teenager” once they turn 18. I know technically they are still a teenager but legally they are considered an adult.

I am the same way here.

18 and 19 year olds aren't really adults as much as the age of majority, but they aren't teenagers either. Clear adulthood is 20/21 and without question at 25

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 8:13 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 7:45 pm I typically stop thinking of someone as a “teenager” once they turn 18. I know technically they are still a teenager but legally they are considered an adult.

I am the same way here.

In my mind, someone can be both an adult and a teenager at the same time. But the typical "teen" would definitely be between 13 and 18.

Speaking of path, I have caught myself pronouncing it as /pæð/ [pʰɛːθ] or even, in particularly careful speech where I 'turn off' final devoicing, as [pʰɛːð]. I have also caught myself pronouncing paths as [pʰɛːz] (/ðz/ and /zð/, including across word boundaries, are liable to both assimilation/reduction and resisting devoicing that may otherwise occur finally or across word boundaries).

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 3:53 pm Speaking of path, I have caught myself pronouncing it as /pæð/ [pʰɛːθ] or even, in particularly careful speech where I 'turn off' final devoicing, as [pʰɛːð]. I have also caught myself pronouncing paths as [pʰɛːz] (/ðz/ and /zð/, including across word boundaries, are liable to both assimilation/reduction and resisting devoicing that may otherwise occur finally or across word boundaries).

Wait, your singular path ends in /ð/? For me it has /θ/.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 4:33 pm Wait, your singular path ends in /ð/? For me it has /θ/.

Historically, not much weirder than stave instead of staff.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 4:33 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 3:53 pm Speaking of path, I have caught myself pronouncing it as /pæð/ [pʰɛːθ] or even, in particularly careful speech where I 'turn off' final devoicing, as [pʰɛːð]. I have also caught myself pronouncing paths as [pʰɛːz] (/ðz/ and /zð/, including across word boundaries, are liable to both assimilation/reduction and resisting devoicing that may otherwise occur finally or across word boundaries).

Wait, your singular path ends in /ð/? For me it has /θ/.

It seems I have free variation between /θ/ and /ð/ in singular path.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 5:26 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 4:33 pm Wait, your singular path ends in /ð/? For me it has /θ/.

Historically, not much weirder than stave instead of staff.

/ð/ in path could be a similar backformation from paths, but also note the alternation between /θ/ and /ð/ in with in many English varieties (I normally have /θ/ in with but I have caught myself pronouncing it with /ð/, and I have heard my father, who grew up in the same suburb as myself, pronounce it with /ð/).

Are there differences between regional variants of English about what term people would usually most likely use for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_theater?

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Oct 26, 2025 8:49 am Are there differences between regional variants of English about what term people would usually most likely use for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_theater?

I¹'d say Operating Theatre, or just Theatre with enough context.

¹ With pretty standard SSBE, although I have enough experience of hospitals that “enough context” for me would be less than for an average person.