Say someone was born in 1997. In 1999 they are obviuosly two years old. But in 1995, was that person two years young?
2006-11-24 18:12:30 · 8 answers · asked by SG 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Genealogy
What I mean is, say in the year 2000, a family is looking back on 1995. Would they say when so and so was two years young, whatever event occured?
2006-11-24 18:18:37 · update #1
No. If it was the parents discussing an event that occurred 2 years before the birth of their child and were talking about it to him or her they would most likely say, "2 years before you were born....."
Sometimes people talk about toddlers as "2 years young" or maybe themselves "I'm 50 years young." but it's rare and usually just a jokey way of talking.
2006-11-24 18:27:57 · answer #1 · answered by kittyfreek 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No the proper analogy is still 'old'. Odd as it may sound people should say he is two years young rather than old. But the body deteriorates with the consumption of time it doesn't rejuvenate. Everything gets older and rots eventually.
2006-11-25 07:30:26 · answer #2 · answered by papabeartex 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They would be 2 years young if time ran in a circle
2006-11-25 02:24:01 · answer #3 · answered by Roy B 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, they usually say 2 years before so and so was born this event occurred.
2006-11-25 04:46:55 · answer #4 · answered by elistia27 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they would say "2 years before so and so was born"
2006-11-25 02:20:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
they are 2 yrs young in 99 depending on how u wanna see it as young or old
2006-11-25 02:18:12 · answer #6 · answered by amsoldier69 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
no they were nothing because they weren't born yet
2006-11-25 02:15:03 · answer #7 · answered by bbqsunflowerseeds 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
all of the above..
2006-11-25 02:15:06 · answer #8 · answered by snoogans 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋