Language desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 24

Usage of "child" / "son or daughter"

In the case where one is referring to a hypothetical family in the context of activity which is limited to adults what is the preferred usage?

"No child of an immigrant has been elected mayor". (because no child can be elected mayor in the first place)

"No son or daughter of an immigrant has been elected mayor".

Extend this to the presidency of the United States.

"No child of a previous president other than John Quincy Adams or George W. Bush has been elected president".

"No son or daughter of a previous president other than John Quincy Adams or George W. Bush has been elected president".

For the real-world case:

"In 2001, George W. Bush would become the second child of a president to serve as president."

"In 2001, George W. Bush would become the second son or daughter of a president to serve as president."

"In 2001, George W. Bush would become the second son of a president to serve as president."

What is the correct usage? The order of "son or daughter" / "daughter or son" is a separate concern. patsw (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fine, but why use three words when one will do. To avoid the very minor age quibble, you could use "offspring". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, avoid "son or daughter" because it mentions the male gender first and it thus gives more importance to men. Gender-neutral "child" is always a valid substitute. Georgia guy (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I try to avoid referring to an adult as a child. "English doesn't really have an ideal word for your adult sons and daughters" according to this, but "offspring" or "progeny" are suggested (both maybe a bit pompous). Alansplodge (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My own guideline is not to use jargon or unnecessarily formal terms (i.e. "offspring", "progengy", "begotten", "issue"). This is not an article on demography. "Child" is gender-neutral but not age-neutral, which is my point after all. Another parallel construction:

Does the phrase "ladies and gentlemen" imply women are more important? Iapetus (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The child of John Adams became president in 1825." (No child becomes president)

"The son of John Adams became president in 1825." patsw (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When "child" is used to mean offspring, it is age-neutral. For example, "The oldest of my children is 40 years old," says this 70-year-old woman. Georgia guy (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an improvement over the above then?

"The 57-year-old child of John Adams became president in 1825." patsw (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that specific case, "son" would be fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is the distinction between that case and the others? patsw (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you say X-year-old child, you are invoking the age-dependent sense of child instead of the age-neutral sense. It's a very subtle distinction. --Khajidha (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no ambiguity. JQ was John Adams' son. Also one of his children, but when you know it's a son (or daughter) there's no reason not to say so, because "son" and "daughter" are sex-specific but age-independent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) So a stand-alone "child" always refers to a person under 18 (approximately). A "child" qualified by an age-reference could indicate an adult son or daughter. Is that the consensus? patsw (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. "A child" is a minor. "The child of"/"a child of" can be of any age. And you only say "x-year-old" child with minors, but "my child is x-years-old" is not age dependent. --Khajidha (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about "The election of George W. Bush in 2001 was only the second instance (after John Quincy Adams) in which a child of a president was himself elected president." Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(2) So a stand-alone "child" always refers to a person under 18 (approximately). A child qualified by "of" could indicate an adult son or daughter without any other context. Is that the consensus? patsw (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Son" works just fine. If a woman gets elected president, and if one of her parents was also a president, then we can address the "sexism" issue. Like, for example, if Chelsea Clinton runs and wins, or Jenna Bush or her sister Barbara runs and wins, or if one of Obama's daughters or Ivanka Trump runs and wins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Son" works for the specific case of US president as no woman has ever attained the office. But a more general statement would need to use "child", as daughters must be considered if no offspring in general have achieved the feat. In some cases daughters may have attained an office, but sons might not (or vice versa). --Khajidha (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Applying my consensus (2) to the general hypothetical:

"No child of an immigrant has been elected mayor".

Is there consensus that is correct usage because the "of" is there? patsw (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that I think everyone is missing is that all language only makes sense in context, and the difference between two similar, and yet distinct definitions is understood through context. Context makes ambiguous or confusing ideas much more obvious. For example, the word "child" has multiple definitions, only some of which means "a minor". In that link, that is definitions 1 and 2. But you'll note that definition 4 in that link does not require that a person labeled a child be a minor For example, when I say "my parents have two children", in that context, you don't know the age of the children, they could even be adults! How would we know? By the context of other words. If I said "My parents have two children that are CEOs of major corporations", the context of being a CEO means that no native English speaker would be thinking of any definition except definition 4. The definition meaning "a son or daughter of human parents" without regard for age is obviously meant here; with the age being obvious and unambiguously inferred from the context of the rest of the description. This is different from "I saw two children playing in the park". In this case, definition "a young person especially between infancy and youth" is obviously meant because the context of "playing in the park" makes that context unambiguous. There is no need to avoid using a word with multiple definitions, because most English words have such multiple definitions. Context almost always solves ambiguity. --Jayron 32 18:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Interpretation of "child" depends on context and could imply "adult child" by context patsw (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]