The story in question was that of five-year-old Sahil Saeed, who was kidnapped in Punjab on Friday.
The source of the editorial unrest was that the copy described the child as an 'infant' - a word that has two meanings in British English: 1) a schoolchild aged between five and seven; 2) a baby.
Although this was apparently a matter of great debate at The Sunday Times, the members of our subs desk unanimously agree that the prevailing meaning is 'baby'. A little investigation into the origins of the word (in the OED) was helpful:
from Latin infant- 'unable to speak', from in 'not' + fant- 'speaking' (from the verb fari)But where are the rules? Neither The Times nor the Guardian style guides address the subject, and Fowler is of little assistance. And what of toddlers, babies, youths etc?
After some discussion, we have decided upon:
Baby/infant - up to 18 months
Toddler - 18 months to three years
Child - 18 months to 12 years??
Youth - 12 years to 18 years
Teenager - obvious
Erm... does anyone have a more specific guide?
Ermmm what about Infant Schools ?
ReplyDeleteI do not think they are for up to 18 months!
Seems to depend on context:
ReplyDeleteMedical: human aged 0 - 1 (though some texts refer to 0 - 12
UK schools: human aged 4 - 7
Law: human before age of majority (i.e. before 18th or 21st anniversary)
Hidden in Webster's is "A child in the first period of life, beginning at his birth; a young babe; sometimes, a child several years of age."
If a general survey was undertaken I suspect that the most common current understanding would be (as in this case?) the nicely non-specific "... a child several years of age".
Damn, I should employ a sub-editor!
ReplyDeleteThat should have read :
"Medical: human aged 0 - 1 (though some texts refer to 0 - 2)"
Ah yes, but these are all usages rather than guides. And as the usage is already confused, it doesn't help clarify how the word should be used for utmost clarity.
ReplyDeleteA frustrating one.
Well is it not usage which defines the meaning ?
ReplyDeleteNot particularly successfully, in this case! And there is little point in copying how others use it if they themselves don't really know what it means. As my mother used to (still does) say - if they all jumped off the pier, would you jump too?
ReplyDeleteSPLASH !
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anonymous about usage being the operative word. With most words the context defines the use. So, if you are talking about infant schools you are obviously not talking about 0-18 months but about 4+. But in most other contexts you probably do mean the former (the non-talking, non-walking kind). I don't think you'll get a cast iron answer to this one because there isn't one: language is fluid for a reason. If the usage of "infant" conveys the meaning of what you are trying to say it has done its job. In other words, it doesn't mean the same thing in all situations: ie "black and white" means one thing when you are talking about zebra crossings and something entirely different when you are talking about race.
ReplyDeletePS Substuff: I would leave comments under something other than "Anonymous" but the site requires me to log in using all kinds of user IDs that mean nothing to me. Apologies for the anonimity.
Regards, Vice Chancellor.
PS It now seems happy to let me leave comments as Vice Chancellor although it remains convinced that I have a URL. I don't. I'll give it a go nonetheless. :-)
Yes, it seems on this occasion I am going to be unable to indulge my rule-making whims. Ah well.
ReplyDeleteOf course language is fluid, but I think it is clear that in this case, the usage did not convey the intended meaning. To describe a five-year-old as an "infant" in a non-school context is misleading.
I have never heard the legal use quoted above though - don't we usually say 'minor'?
ps. Yes, just ignore the bit about the URL - you can choose a name without having to log in. All these Anonymouses are boggling my mind!
Anonymi?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you and your subs desk have decided upon - spot on as far as my understanding. The only exception is when referring to Infant Schools which cover the age group 5-7, or should I say 5 to 7?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am looking at it from a zebra point of view but the distinctions between the groups seems pretty clear to me.
I think we are getting to the source of the problem here.
ReplyDelete'To describe a five-year-old as an "infant" in a non-school context is misleading.'
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. Its use doesn't clarify or explain in any more detail the course of events: in fact it just muddies the waters.
I would suggest that the reporter has used the term "infant" in an emotive way rather than factually (ie a helpless individual). As such, I think it would have been right to stick to the facts. "The child was kidnapped" is obviously sufficient.
I guess, in short, I would expect the Daily Mail to report that "an infant" was kidnapped while I would expect the Sunday Times to say "a child". But hey, I read neither!
PS Nothing wrong with an en dash between pairings(as opposed to a hyphen or an em dash). From the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors: "The en rule is used to join pairs wherever movement or tension, rather than co-operation or unity, is felt" eg 1914-1918 war."
You write above: "Neither The Times nor the Guardian style guides address the subject." It is my understanding that neither...nor always takes the singular verb (as per Times style guide). But in this case I am not sure.
ReplyDelete"Neither The Times nor the Guardian style guides addresses the subject" may be correct or should it be "Neither The Times nor the Guardian style guide addresses the subject"?
You are quite right, boss. And the latter is correct, I believe, though it does make me twitch slightly.
ReplyDeleteLonger, I grant you . . . but then brevity doesn't always equal clarity.
ReplyDeleteThe style guides of The Guardian and The Times don't address the subject.
PS I just hope your subs' desk hasn't agreed that the murder of a child (esp by the mother rather interestingly) over 18 months should now be termed childicide.