Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 August 2

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Language
Language desk
< August 1 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 3 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


August 2 edit

"Age" versus "aged" edit

Let's consider the following two variations of a sentence: (A) "John Smith, age 29, was identified as the gunman." and (B) "John Smith, aged 29, was identified as the gunman." Is the word "age" or "aged" correct? Or is it a stylistic preference? All of the Wikipedia articles use "aged" in the age-box templates. And I have never heard that phrasing in my life. I have only heard "age". I ask here, so that I can get some background information and solicit input and opinions. I also started a discussion here (Template talk:Death date and age#"age" versus "aged") to attempt to get that template changed. Any thoughts or ideas? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to EO, for this usage, "age" (noun) precedes "aged" (adjective) by more than a century.[1][2] I would say "age" is more common nowadays, although you see "aged" frequently on old tombstones. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Googling the subject turns up a number of entries. One of them is a serendipitous example of how civil (NOT) the users of "stack exchange" can be.[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most modern languages that I am acquainted with use the verb "have" rather than "be" to express age, for example Portuguese Ele tem vinte anos (he is twenty years old). Is English the odd one out here, and if so, why? 86.134.217.6 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The English "to be" covers a lot of ground. Consider Spanish, which has several verbs translate to "be" or "is" or "are" or whatever the situation in English. Age is rendered like tiene veinte años ("[he/she] has twenty years", as with Portugese. Then there's the two different verbs ser and estar, which I like to think of as "essence" vs. "status", since that's where they come from. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely - German and Dutch also use "be" and not "have." -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Japanese, and in Chinese the 'be' verb can be dropped altogether. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 22:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welsh typically uses "is" e.g. "'she is thirty years old": "Mae hi'n ddeg ar hugain oed". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I invariably amend "died age 90" to "died aged 90" or "died at the age of 90", where I see it in Brit Eng articles. I always used "aged" and I must admit I thought this was a UK/US usage varaint. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the phrasing can be changed altogether ("John Smith is age 29" or "John Smith was identified at the age of 29" or what-have-you). But, I am asking about the distinction in my above examples, "A" and "B", only. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, at least, you would probably say "age" if you were writing a newspaper article. The term "aged" is more likely to appear on a tombstone. British English may differ. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly does differ. BBC News would always use "aged" in the example given by Joseph above, or more usually for deaths "at the age of". Note: the word in the UK charity Help the Aged is typically pronounced with a Biblical-type stress on the e (like the blessed in Brian Blessed). Not that this relates to tombstones, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, option B is correct, but option A is incorrect in the same way that it would be incorrect to say "Barack Obama, wife Michelle, is the American president" or "Barack Obama, birthplace Honolulu, is the American president".
—Wavelength (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your examples at all? Are you really saying that you find "John Smith, age 29, was identified as the gunman" analogous to "Barack Obama, wife Michelle, is the American president"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to your second question is "Yes".—Wavelength (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are in no way analogous. "Age 29" is a phrase that describes the person. "Wife Michelle" and "Birthplace Hawaii" are not phrases that describe a person. You are mixing apples and oranges. Furthermore, are you in the USA or Britain? You are saying that all of the USA newspapers are wrong? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, I maintain privacy for many things about myself, including my birthplace, the country (or countries) of my formal education, and my present location. Anyway, I do not limit myself to one "national variety of English", but I use what I deem to be the most practical option in each situation, although I am willing to bend for instructors, employers, and customers. (I recommend that Wikipedia abandon MOS:ENGVAR in favor of something somewhat like User:Angr/Unified English Spelling, or, failing that, one of the "national varieties of English", even if the one chosen is not my preferred choice or the variety with which I am the most familiar.)
Here are some additional (incorrect) examples. John Smith, hair red, wrote this book. John Smith, job beekeeping, wrote this book. John Smith, ancestry Maltese, wrote this book. John Smith, memory encyclopedic, wrote this book.
I have not examined all the USA newspapers.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC) and 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I have not examined all the USA newspapers." Your response is not helpful. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, here are some links.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a one of those is relevant. We are comparing "John, age 29, did such and such" with "John, aged 29, did such and such". None of your examples is relevant at all, in the context we are debating. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your position, Wavelength. Joseph Spadaro, would you be happy with "Joe Brown, height 6', likes chocolate", or "Joe Brown, weight 120 kg, likes fruit", or "Joe Brown, left-handed, collects stamps", or "Joe Brown, myopia, edits WP"? I hope not. Those 4 things are all characteristics or attributes of Joe Brown, but he is not those things. Neither is he his age. "Joe Brown, who is aged 64 ..." or "Joe Brown, whose age is 64 ..." etc can be shortened to "Joe Brown, aged 64 ...", but not "... age 64". I accept that US and other Englishes can have differences, but "age 29" is not, as you claim, "a phrase that describes the person". Not in any variety of English. It is a phrase that specifies an age, it does not describe a person. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If true, then all of the USA newspapers (and news articles) are doing this wrong. And have been doing so for years (at least, since I was born). Maybe someone should notify them? At the end of the day, this is a British versus American semantic variation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, what's wrong with "Joe Brown, left-handed, collects stamps."? That's perfectly acceptable. No different – in sentence structure – than: "The student, dismayed and upset, presented his report card to his parents." (or some such). All the other examples are non-sensical. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is different in sentence structure. Left-handed and dismayed and upset are both adjectival phrases, which are syntactically normal here. Age 64, like birthplace Honolulu, is a small clause used absolutely, and has only a pragmatic, not a syntactic, relationship with the noun phrase it follows. --ColinFine (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your post, or you didn't understand mine. Jack of Oz said that this sentence is bad/improper: "Joe Brown, left-handed, collects stamps". I said that it was perfectly fine. I said that Jack of Oz's sentence (about left-handed Joe) is of the same sentence structure as this: "The student, dismayed and upset, presented his report card to his parents". That sentence (about the report cards) is perfectly fine. Your reply was "It certainly is different in sentence structure." How so? I see it as: Noun, adjectives, verb. Perfectly acceptable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the person here (What is the difference between “aged” and “age”?) agrees with me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these people here (age vs. aged) agree with me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the person here (ages vs aged?) agrees with me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ser and estar appear in Portuguese as well. O que sera sera corresponds to Italian "Que sera sera, whatever will be will be, the future's not ours to see, que sera sera", as the song goes. Estar denotes a more temporary state, as in esta na loja, "he is in the shop", which I guess corresponds to the "status" Bugs refers to.There is also another wide - ranging verb, ficar, which can mean to be, to become or to remain depending on context. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro and Wavelength: I happen to agree with you from the point of view of linguistic purity. However, we are not the language police here. The truth of the matter is that "age" rather than "aged" is commonly used in the United States by many reputable publications. Since that is true, if an editor here chooses to use that construction, I have to respect that.
I'd therefore rather try to determine why this might be deemed a reasonable construction. Here's my take on it. I see this construction as being one of apposition, not much different from "Joe Smith, beekeeper." In this case. the apposition is "Joe Smith, [man of] age 68," with words "man of" further deleted as being obvious.
From the point of view of linguistic purity, I prefer "aged". But I don't think "age" is so bad. I see it as justifiable, and not as a linguistic disaster. So my advice to you is: Get over it, and worry about really bad grammar, not about this. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree with the great majority of your post. And appreciate your input. That being said, I must ask: how do you deem your advice as being "helpful"? (Namely, your advice being: "So my advice to you is: Get over it, and worry about really bad grammar, not about this.") We are trying to determine the correct wording for an age template in Wikipedia. My understanding is that this will affect hundreds of thousands of articles. So, how is that advice helpful to the goal at hand? Thanks. 16:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I had lost track of the original purpose of the discussion. I apologize for that. Still, in regard to that specific point: I don't think one can rely on either a definitive point of grammar/usage or a definitive preference in reliable sources to make a decision here one way or the other. Instead, I think that one must either (a) choose to abide by the numbers in a straight !vote on this subject, or (b) decide that unless that !vote goes 65% (or whatever) against current practice that there is no consensus for change. I don't think there is an objective preferable answer here.
In American usage, by the way, I think "aged" tends to be used more in "causative" settings, if you will. Cheese is "aged x months", because it is specifically and actively put aside to age for x months. Because people are not actively put aside by someone to age, there is a tendency not to say that they are "aged y years", but rather are "age y years". Just my two cents. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are actually two very good "solutions" or "compromises" being proposed at that link above. (1) One is to have two templates: an American and a British. So, if the date is in British format (e.g., 2 September 2012), the template would yield "aged". And if the date is in American format (e.g., September 2, 2012), the template would yield "age". (2) Another proposed solution offered is to scrap the wording "age 26" or "aged 26" with simply "26 years old". I like that solution. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Normal UK usage includes the phrase "Joe has aged a lot since I saw him last" etc, which is sort of similar to the "cheese and wine" usage. But, as I suggested, I think there is a very strong tendency to say "aged y years" rather than "age y years". The later ins't "wrong" and no-one would think it odd if they heard it in conversation, it;s just far less common in UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the US, "Joe has aged [greatly] since I saw him last" would be the only way to go in that construction. One can used "aged" (often pronounced agèd) somewhat synonymously with "elderly," too. (I say somewhat, because they are not quite perfect synonyms. But you get my point, I trust.) I was referring strictly to this appositive construction of "age[d] x [months/years]" in this case.
I like "26 years old" myself. Alternatively, I put up a slightly alternative idea to that over on that talk page: put it on a separate line: Age at death - - - - 26 years (no hyphens, just trying to make the spacing work here). StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said in UK we have "Help the Agèd". I would not object outright to your other suggestion, although Age at death maybe sounds a little cumbersome. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm not a native speaker, but "John Smith, age 29, was identified as the gunman" reads rather telegraphese or headlinese to me. Certainly not particularly pretty stylistically. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely common in English. The other ("John Smith, aged 29, was identified as the gunman") is absolutely unheard of in English (USA). I have never once heard it or seen it in my entire life – not even once – (prior to Wikipedia's incorrect usage). The other ("John Smith, age 29, was identified as the gunman"), I have seen a million times. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You probably just have a hearing impediment, James. "Aged 29" is perfectly cromulent and unremarkable in American English. In fact, "age 29" is short for "at/of the age of 29". μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: I don't understand your post. Please clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Special treat for you Joseph. One edition of BBC News at Ten would easily cure you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: Huh? I don't understand your post at all? Your source is the British Daily Mail, correct? That is saying exactly what I have been saying: that "aged" is used in British English and "age" in American English. You simply supported my position, not refuted it, correct? I don't understand what your post is saying? Please explain. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it's probably your hearing impediment again. I just felt sorry that you'd not seen something in your entire life. We all get a little rusty, don't we. But I'm loving your Craquelure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do I call her? edit

My sister died at the age of three months, but this was years before I was born. Do I call her my 'big sister' or my 'little sister'? KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 14:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try "older" sister. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Bugs, but I have been using "elder" sister for most of my life. I'm wondering whether this would be correct. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 15:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds correct to me. Not sure if you take advice from Wiktionary, but it supports my Sprachgefühl. (In fact, that's what I intended to suggest all along, had the hare not been faster to reply.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)AIUI elder is only used if you have more than one sister, to distinguish between them. Your elder sister could be younger than yourself, but your older sister is always the one born before you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be, more unambiguously, "the elder of my sisters". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Straight up? How can my elder sister be younger than me? 86.134.217.6 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have two brothers, one of which I refer to as my "eldest" brother, and the other as my "elder" brother. Would this be correct? KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 16:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer that question I think we would need to know your age and the age of each of your brothers. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are older than me. I would have thought that would be obvious. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 16:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do / did you only have the one older sister? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she was the only one. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 21:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can uniquely specify up to four siblings using only the elder/eldest and younger/youngest adjectives. In birth order they are: Eldest, elder, yourself, younger, youngest. If you have only two siblings they are elder and younger (excluding twins) regardless of your own position in the birth order. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can actually get an eldest twin (or is that the elder??) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of our editors patted himself on the back because he had to prepare birth certificates for two twins, the first of whom was born just before the switch to winter time and the second who was born just after. He annotated the certificates to make it clear which was the elder. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the first twin is born before the change in time, and the second twin is born a few minutes later (after the change in time), who is considered the older and who the younger? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would only matter in the case of inheritances etc. Whichever was actually born first in real time, regardless of what the clock or the calendar said. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Here's the example (using US Eastern, though of course this could be happening anywhere there is summer time:
  • Twin #1, born at 01:59 EDT on 1 November 2015 ( = 05:59 UTC on 1 November 2015)
  • Twin #2, born at 01:10 EST on 1 November 2015 ( = 06:10 UTC on 1 November 2015), 11 minutes later.
Of course, it's good that the editor above was careful. Just because the above situation is the reality does not mean it would have been interpreted correctly, had the paperwork not been prepared carefully. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KageTora, since my youngest sister died at 20, when I was 26, I made the considered decision simply to refer to her as my sister without qualifiers unless mentioning she was my late sister was appropriate. In my ears "little" sounds morbid and "big" sounds surreal. Even elder sounds odd. "My late first-born sister" might be a good compromise, even though first-born is still ambiguous. But I don't think you can plan ahead or should torture yourself over such things. My parents' first daughter also works, without ambiguity, and it kind of gently paves the road for the notion she is deceased, since referring to her that way lets the listener know there is some important reason you are not just saying sister without qualifying the word. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unlikely that you'll be introducing her to new people any time soon. The English language is not so confusing or problematic that merely stating plain facts when it comes up is likely to lead to confusion. "I had a sister who was born before me; she died at 3 months old" does not lead to any ambiguity. You don't need one word to capture that meaning, and the 5 seconds it takes to state that entire sentence is not like to cause people to lose track of your meaning either. --Jayron32 03:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... deja vu. Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors make heavy weather of "what the calendar said". Jack highlighted this in the context of articles concerning Russia. You would think that the actual date on a calendar on the wall or in a newspaper would be used, but they have other ideas. Every date prior to 14 February 1918 they insist on converting to Gregorian, so you get howlers like "They left Russia on 2 January, just before Christmas." These days they do celebrate Christmas on 7 January but they didn't then (in fact the Christmas festivities now last a whole two weeks).
The same problem is met with in articles covering colonial America - here it's dates before 14 September 1752 which are targeted. They have articles which take references from military archives of the period which they keep "as is", so the result is that these articles are a mess. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why people are supposed to use Old Style and New Style dates in cases like that. The purpose is to avoid ambiguity. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is what people claim and they are wrong. King Charles I was executed on 30 January, 1648 according to contemporary reckoning and 1649 according to us (the year used to begin on Lady Day). The date is never given as 9 February. All that article says is that ambiguity can be avoided by writing the date "30 January 1648/9" which was commonplace at that time. 86.134.217.6 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I would hesitate to call O.S./N.S. wrong (though I'm not entirely sure what you think is wrong: possibly I'm just confused). It's just a convention, that may well differ between countries. O.S. and N.S. is apparently more standard for Russian stuff, for example – ru:Октябрьская революция uses it, spelling it out the first time "25—26 октября (7 — 8 ноября по новому стилю)", and then later in brackets (e.g. "2 (15) марта 1917"). In English sometimes I see wholesale conversion (probably after clarifying it the first time a date is mentioned), and sometimes O.S./N.S. (the latter more usually when there's not so many dates to talk about, so it doesn't clutter the text). Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2015_August_2&oldid=1074627839"