[Daviey]

And the inverse is?

I don't think I agree that this is common language.

The simple form of relationship is "our children" or "my parents", clarifying the age bracket isn't normally used. I say this as someone with 2 children, one is 19.

In some contexts I may describe my parents as "my elderly parents", but only if the age context is relevant.

[dgfitz]

> And the inverse is?

Infant? Toddler? Young child? Tween? Teenager?

Really?

[Daviey]

Inverse means opposite, but I'll pretend you answered the question.

So you'd introduce every time, as your (infant|toddler|young child|tween|teenager|adult|senior|elderly) child? Because that seems odd.

Yes, really.

[dgfitz]

> So you'd introduce every time, as your (infant|toddler|young

As opposed to what? I’m not arrogant enough to assume every stranger online knows the general age of my kids.

[Daviey]

You introduced your children into the discussion using the bare noun "kids" rather than a more specific noun phrase like "young kids" or "teenage kids." By omitting any age-related adjective, you focused on the essential fact of having children without specifying their age. This choice demonstrates common linguistic practice, we typically only mention the age range of relatives when it's directly relevant to the topic at hand. Your language use here is a nice example of this principle in action, effectively supporting my argument.

One might argue that by not providing the age context as an adjective, you disrespected your children. However, this position seems to assume that age-specific descriptors are always necessary, which I disagree with. In fact, your choice to use the bare noun appears to show a nuanced understanding of when such specificity is needed and when it's superfluous.

EDIT: I also see it's not the first time you've, according to your definition, been arrogant enough to not provide the age range of your children: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41213069

[dgfitz]

Damn bro, this really got to you huh? Not rebuffed much?

I'm not going to bother with a real reply. You clearly have issues.

[Daviey]

Your response perfectly illustrates a common behaviour: the inability to admit when one is wrong. Rather than engaging with the linguistic analysis I presented, you've retreated to personal attacks and dismissive language. This is a textbook reaction of someone who realises their argument doesn't hold water but lacks the integrity to acknowledge it.

I provided a thoughtful, on-topic discussion. Your choice to sidestep it entirely speaks volumes. It strongly suggests you recognise the validity of my points but are too prideful to concede.

If you actually have a substantive rebuttal to the linguistic concepts we were discussing, let's hear it. Otherwise, your ad hominem remarks only serve to underscore the strength of my original argument and your inability to counter it.

And let's be clear - I'm not your 'bro'. Resorting to such casual dismissiveness doesn't mask your failure to engage in genuine debate.

I'll take no response to this as an acknowledgement that you were incorrect in your assertion.