4 ms·
Technically, isn't it the youngest child going extinct and the middle child left to take on the role of the youngest?
by dqpb 8y ago
Technically, isn't it the youngest child going extinct and the middle child left to take on the role of the youngest?
- dazzer 8y agoWell no... the middle child only comes into existence upon the introduction of the younger child.
- sxv 8y agocan't tell if trolling or ingenious..
- derefr 8y agoRight. A lot clearer if we use absolute cardinals here: the second child is now the youngest, whereas before they were the middle child. There are both cultural/traditional and [epi]genetic implications of birth order, so this might imply a better or worse suitedness of the role of youngest-child given differing birth orders of the title-holder.
- wccrawford 8y agoWhenever a couple has any kids at all, there is always a youngest child and an oldest child. Sometimes, they are the same child. There is not always a "middle child" because that requires at least 2 other children to exist. You're trying to say that the "third child" is going extinct, which matches what the article is saying in a different way.
- EADGBE 8y ago> Whenever a couple has any kids at all, there is always a youngest child and an oldest child. Sometimes, they are the same child. Technically, that's an only child and that has articles all its own...