Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#103239 05/16/03 07:52 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171
J
member
Offline
member
J
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171
"What was "so common" which would explain why there was no word to describe a parent who had lost a child?"

I interpreted the statement as meaning that "infant mortality" was "so common" that almost all parents fell into the category of "parents who had lost a child", and that there was therefore no need to differentiate among parents by coining a special word which would essentially apply to the majority of them. I'm not sure enough of the statistical basis for this statement (i.e., what percentage of parents suffered child loss during the "period of the development of the English language"), but the premise doesn't seem that far fetched to me.



#103240 05/16/03 12:58 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
the statistical basis for this statement

Apparently solid statistics weren't kept then, but this site seems to indicate that before the 20th century infant mortality ran around 200-300 per 1000 live births:

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm


#103241 05/16/03 05:24 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
I happen to both understand and agree with Faldage's view. The number of families in which children died - and it was 17 in the case of Queen Anne, if my memory is not too faulty - prior to the 20th century was so high that it was something to be expected. Why no English word was coined to describe a parent who had lost a child is no clearer to me than to Faldage, but his explanation of why one may not have been required rings quite true.

For most of human history, infant mortality in the region of 25% seems to have been the norm. You bred four times to ensure three. Or something like that anyway!


#103242 05/16/03 08:36 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
In my historical interpretive studies for mid-19th Century American (US) life, the figure given for childhood mortality, under the age of ten, was 50%....so Americans, at that time, could expect to lose half their children before they were ten years old. A high childhood mortality rate was one of the reasons folks were given to raising such large families then (10 to 17 children were common)...the other being that, in a largely agrarian society, extra hands were needed to run the farm.


#103243 05/16/03 10:03 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,636
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,636
Well, *that and there really was no effective means of birth control and dag-nabit, the making is just too much fun


#103244 05/16/03 10:18 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Nobody seems to ever ask "How many parents do you have", even though the time seems to be *ripe for it.

+

As long as your ability to have more children isn't hindered what difference did it make if any died when loss is/was so *common.

=

?


#103245 05/17/03 06:46 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
W
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
W
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
before the 20th century infant mortality ran around 200-300 per 1000 live births

OK, now I get it. Thank you.

An interesting point. But it gives us only half an explanation. It explains why we did not have a word to describe such a parent over a hundred years ago, but it doesn't explain why we have no word for such a parent today. New words come into the language all the time. That's why I lean toward Hawaii's explanation. It covers both time periods, then and now.




#103246 05/17/03 12:35 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Well, *that and there really was no effective means of birth control and dag-nabit, the making is just too much fun

Yep, Connie...and most women in those days were almost continually pregnant from the time they first wed (many as young as 14 or 15) to the time they reached menopause (usually around 40 or so). Fun, eh, ladies?

That is, of course, unless they decided to refrain from their "fun" for awhile. I guess that's why brothels were viewed as a "necessary evil" where gentrified gentlemen could partake of their pleasures without worrying about impregnating their wives. Brothels were the "birth control" of the day, if you will. And a strange, and never-spoken-about, double standard in a supposedly rigorously religious society. Of course the less-monied, the poor, and the farmers couldn't afford this option. But one does wonder when they found time among the rural set, since many of the farm families shared one large bed with the mother and father in the middle and the children, according to age, next to them, the daughters next to Mom and the sons next to Dad. Doesn't make a great recipe for romance.



#103247 05/17/03 03:11 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Re:. Brothels were the "birth control" of the day, if you will.

and the ladies there too, got pregnant-- another 'unspoken' aspect was 'work houses' and 'infants' home (such as the the oliver twist got sent to) where infant mortality was as high a 95%--

in NY city, such 'day care centers' for the poor and unwed often had 97 to 99% mortality in the first year.. (it was a form of infantcide)(according to reformer like Jacob Riis)

the mothers (or fathers) didn't do it directly, but they abandon their children to such care centers/orphanages, and never visited them.. and the children soon died..

it was rare for an orhanage to actually care for and have children survive.. the exceptions were usually religious run orphanages.


#103248 05/17/03 06:08 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
farm families shared one large bed with the mother and father in the middle and the children, according to age, next to them, the daughters next to Mom and the sons next to Dad. Doesn't make a great recipe for romance.

Which reminds me of the Buck Brown cartoon from Playboy many, many moons ago: "Betty Sue, I'm ashamed o' you, givin' to a total stranger what you won't give to your own kin!"


Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,912
Posts229,283
Members9,179
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV, Heather_Turey, Standy
9,179 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 444 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,510
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5