View Single Post
  #6   Report Post  
Old 19-10-2012, 12:33 AM posted to uk.rec.gardening,alt.usage.english
Don Phillipson Don Phillipson is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 53
Default OT Serious question

"GordonD" wrote in message
...
"Don Phillipson" wrote in message
...
"David Hill" wrote in message
...

A cousin of mine lost her daughter to cancer a short while ago.
She raised the following question.
A man who loses his wife is a widower, a woman who loses her husband is
a widow, a child who loses a parent is an orphan. Why is there no word
in the English language for a parent who loses a child?


Perhaps because before 1900 this was so common: most
parents lost at least one child to illness, i.e. bereavement was
normal and required no special word.


I'd also suggest that there's no easy way to tell if a family is missing a
child as there is no set number of children they should have. In the other
situations, there is: one spouse or two parents; any fewer and it's clear
something has happened, either a death or a family break-up.


Family trees of the 18th and 19th centuries seem to confirm the
normality of death before maturity. Some of my ancestors applied the
same Christian name to three successive children (because the first
two died in infancy.) The implication is that such families did not
feel they were "missing a child."

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)