13

In most languages (I know of), people say their age with a construction like "I have X years". In English, however, you say how old you are instead. So I'm curious about what is it about the logic of English that makes this sound more natural than "I have X years". All I can find is that "this is just cultural/this is just how the language evolved", but I'm sure there's some logic to it.

I'm also particularly interested in the logic that makes the construction "I am X years old" possible. I suppose it comes from the fact that, in English, we modify/specify words by placing words before the word we want to modify/specify. Something like:

— I am old.
— How old?
— Very old.
— How old exactly?
— 900 years old.

Am I on the right track? Is "900 years" in this case really behaving the same as "very", or interchangeable with it? (The available information about numerals as adjectives or adverbs is very conflicting.) Or is there something more specific about numbers, or this particular construction, that applies here?

San Diago
  • 1,399
  • 2
  • 10
  • 12
  • 26
    Asking "why" questions about languages is often fruitless. Every language has aspects that don't make sense to non-native speakers, but native speakers never think about. – stangdon Jul 14 '22 at 13:52
  • 5
    Maybe people over on Linguistics SE would be interested in this question. – CowperKettle Jul 14 '22 at 14:28
  • 38
    What's the logic of "I have X years" in other languages? – Laurel Jul 14 '22 at 15:11
  • @Laurel Are you asking because you want to know or because you are offended by the question? – San Diago Jul 14 '22 at 15:13
  • @CowperKettle Thanks for the suggestion but I'll pass - this question seems to offend people somehow. – San Diago Jul 14 '22 at 15:15
  • 6
    I think this question might be a very good fit for Linguistics SE. The reason: it's a 'why' question. – Michael Harvey Jul 14 '22 at 15:31
  • 27
    Nobody is 'offended', it's just that the only answer is 'that's how we say it'. (German and the Scandinavian languages say it that way too.) – Kate Bunting Jul 14 '22 at 16:47
  • @KateBunting if that were the case, people would just say that. Instead, they focus on either arguing that English is not alone in this approach, or that it's the other approach that is "illogical". This suggests they took it to mean that I was implying English is illogical, or that it is "wrong" for being in the minority. This, coupled with language that can definitely be read as defensive, suggests that the users took offense to the question. – San Diago Jul 14 '22 at 16:59
  • Here we go again. – San Diago Jul 14 '22 at 17:28
  • 11
    Just to add to the fun linguistic survey, in Hebrew you are a son or daughter of N years. I am a son of 31 years. – Luke Sawczak Jul 14 '22 at 19:03
  • 2
    I think this is a very good question. Yes, it may be just “because”, but IMHO it would be interesting to know when English became different in this regard from closely related Germanic languages or French. // For this reason it might be a better question for a linguistics stock exchange group, or English language and usage. History of language.//Although I can vouch that knowing such information helped me learn other languages, so I suspect it will help an English learner.// BTW I suspect the creolization of Old English with. Via the Danelaw and the Norman conquest. @Laurel … – Krazy Glew Jul 14 '22 at 23:15
  • 7
    @KrazyGlew - As I commented above, English is _not_ different from the Germanic languages in this regard. I am ten years old = Ich bin zehn Jahre alt (German) = Jag är tio år gammal (Swedish). – Kate Bunting Jul 15 '22 at 07:06
  • 5
    You’ll usually be disappointed if you expect there to be a consistent logic behind things like this, in any language. if you enjoy learning about all the different ways languages express this, though, you’ll have a lot of fun. – Davislor Jul 15 '22 at 09:29
  • 16
    "In most languages", I think you might be wrong there – Ivo Jul 15 '22 at 10:39
  • 3
    I upvoted this question partly because as a naive English speaker I never would have thought there was anything strange about this construction. – Todd Wilcox Jul 15 '22 at 12:28
  • 1
    If interested, look how age is expressed in russian (мне 20 [лет]) and in estonian (ma olen 20 aastane / ma olen 20 [aastat vana]) - you got at least two more possibilities. Sorry for not providing direct translations into english :) – Arvo Jul 15 '22 at 13:13
  • Largely because past time isn't something that you can have, hold or possess. At any moment in time, you can only "have" that instantaneous moment. – RBarryYoung Jul 15 '22 at 13:31
  • 6
    Not a native English speaker, so I don't have any reason to be offended, but other languages such as the Japanese language also use the same construction as English, i.e. 私はX歳です = I am X years old. So, unless the question mentioned which languages are "in most languages (I know of)", there's a possibility of confirmation bias. – Andrew T. Jul 16 '22 at 17:40
  • Also, not in self-reference, but to others, in English, "a child 10 years of age", is equivalent to "a child 10 years old". The "of age" is a not as common... – paul garrett Jul 17 '22 at 01:02
  • @paulgarrett And don't forget "a child of 10 years" which is fairly common. – barbecue Jul 17 '22 at 13:09
  • Does anyone doubt this would be better Asked in English Language and Usage? – Robbie Goodwin Sep 20 '22 at 21:42

6 Answers6

40

Here's a much closer model:

How tall is it? It's 50 metres tall.

How long is it? It's two miles long.

How long is it? It's 40 minutes long.

How old are you? I'm 31 years old.

This doesn't work for all adjectives, only ones of dimension. Even other easily quantifiable ones are different:

How hot is it? It's 30 degrees hot.

How bright is it? It's 60 Watts bright.

So we might say that age is conceptualized as a kind of dimension.

(That said, as I noted below, in comparatives this pattern seems to open up to more types of adjective: It's 60 pounds heavy works as expected, but we do use it in It's 60 pounds heavier than that one — and same for brighter, hotter, cleaner, etc.)

By the by, to us the idea of "having" years sounds odd. Where do you keep them? In the attic? :p

Luke Sawczak
  • 10,726
  • 25
  • 36
  • 7
    [Clap, clap, clap] :) I call this idea: implied semantic trait – Lambie Jul 14 '22 at 14:58
  • 3
    On further reflection, I find that we can repeat more adjectives but only in comparatives: *How heavy is it? It's 40 pounds.* No adjective. But *This one is 40 pounds heavier than that one.* Adjective! – Luke Sawczak Jul 14 '22 at 15:04
  • 2
    @LukeSawczak Yes, it works perfectly. Even in the examples you provided -- How hot is it? It's 30 degrees hotter than that one. How bright is it? It's 60 Watts brighter than this one. – San Diago Jul 14 '22 at 15:06
  • @SanDiago I suppose another option (more philosophical than linguistic) might be to distinguish attributes and predicates... – Luke Sawczak Jul 14 '22 at 19:09
  • 20
    For what it's worth, Watts aren't a unit of brightness. Not that anyone says "800 lumens bright". – shadowtalker Jul 14 '22 at 23:55
  • @shadowtalker Technically no, but they're so familiar as a shorthand for brightness that (as I'm sure you've seen too) lightbulbs are still marketed as "60 Watt equivalent"! – Luke Sawczak Jul 15 '22 at 00:04
  • Be careful with your analogies. Where do you keep your cold when you have one? – Barmar Jul 15 '22 at 13:00
  • That marketing, @LukeSawczak, is as useful as "As seen on TV", or "New and Improved!". – FreeMan Jul 15 '22 at 13:05
  • @Barmar Usually in the region of the nose and lungs ;) All tongue-in-cheek, of course... – Luke Sawczak Jul 15 '22 at 13:15
  • 1
    @FreeMan It's plausibly more solid than those, since you could compare the lumen output of a CFL bulb of N Watts and that of an LED bulb of M Watts. Normally I fault an advertiser for everything I can, but I have to concede that it's not the manufacturer's fault that "8 Watts" sounds so puny and no one knows how to use lumens yet! – Luke Sawczak Jul 15 '22 at 13:18
  • 1
    Early CFLs & LEDs were so pitifully weak that "60 watt equivalent" meant that you had to triple (or more) the number of bulbs for the same lumens. Today's LEDs can produce _significantly_ more lumens for the same "watts equivalent" than an incandescent. `` – FreeMan Jul 15 '22 at 13:23
  • 1
    On topic, I fully support your answer and have given it my +1, BTW. It needs to wrap up with `How old is it? It's 50 years old.` to complete the analogy... – FreeMan Jul 15 '22 at 13:25
  • 1
    I think we repeat the adjective when the same unit could be used to measure more than one thing. Something could be two feet long, wide, tall, deep, across, high, or away. Likewise, something can be four years old, long, early, or late. But there is only one way in which something can be three pounds, five cups, 200 calories, or seventy watts. – Andrew Ray Jul 15 '22 at 19:48
  • @FreeMan Ah, my naïveté gets the better of me again, to assume that numbers mean what they appear to... – Luke Sawczak Jul 16 '22 at 00:24
  • Or to ask about a person, "How tall are you? I'm 180 cm tall." On the other hand, I don't think one usually hears "How heavy are you?" (and I don't mean any perceived unpoliteness of asking about someone's weight). – ilkkachu Jul 17 '22 at 17:14
  • as pointed out in another answer: https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/318883/11835 you have years too (of practice, of experience, ...). Where do you store those? – njzk2 Jul 17 '22 at 19:21
10

There is no logic. In fact English used to be a language where you could use either be or have to express specific ages:

[I]n Latin we find sum, esse, fui 'be' to express age (see fuit in (19)), whereas in Italian, which is a descendant of Latin, only AVERE 'have' is used, e.g. ho trenta anni (I-have thirty years) 'I'm thirty years old'. No wonder that English has enjoyed a similar competition; in Middle English not infrequently the structure with HAVEN is attested, consider:

  • (20) a. Þet knaue child for-tene ger Schel habbe.
    that male child fourteen years shall have c1350 (a1333) Shoreham Poems (Add 17376) 61/1726
  • b. Thou hast not git fifty geer, and hast thou seyn Abraham?
    KJV: 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?' (c1384) WBible(1) (Dc 369(2)) John 8.57
  • c. þe hors schulde haue xxti winter.
    the horse should have twenty years (c1443) Pecock Rule (Mrg M 519) 268

(Grammaticalisation Paths of Have in English)

Going back to modern English, every year you get older and have another year under your belt. Hardcore criminals do dozens of years and people who are dying may only have a few months. (Note: "have another year under your belt" means to be another year older, especially in the sense that you've experienced another year's worth of life; "do X months/years" means to spend that amount of time in prison; "have X months/years" means that doctors only expect you to live that much longer.)

The fact that in other, superficially similar expressions we use be is a mere coincidence. It may be idiomatic to say that the paper is millimeters thick, but it's also idiomatic to say that the paper doesn't have enough thickness.

Have and be are both verbs that are used very arbitrarily. (And you can see how arbitrary it really is by looking at the Middle English Dictionary's other definitions for have that have fallen out of fashion. You don't say that you "have right" anymore, for example: you are right.)

Laurel
  • 13,624
  • 2
  • 39
  • 64
  • 2
    Well, arbitrary up to a certain point, then verb is favored over the other, as your short historical tour shows. And have right can be entitled. :) Historical linguistics is not the only avenue in play here. – Lambie Jul 14 '22 at 17:46
  • 2
    @Davislor It *is* "[yet](https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED53930)" but from an era before "yet" was always written with a "y". The MED has "Thou hast not ʒit fifty ʒeer". See [Biblehub](https://biblehub.com/john/8-57.htm). – Laurel Jul 14 '22 at 22:07
  • @Laurel Thank you for the correction. – Davislor Jul 14 '22 at 23:07
  • Wemight no longer have right, but (as you know) we do still have **a** right, and indeed, have rights. – Davislor Jul 15 '22 at 09:26
  • @Davislor We also still have _it_ right, though syntactically, that’s a different construction. It’s rather odd, actually, that we no longer ‘have right’, since English really is the odd one out there, with surrounding languages mostly ‘having’ instead: Germanic languages ‘have right’ (German _Du hast Recht_, etc.), Romance languages ‘have reason’ (French _tu as raison_, etc.), and even some of the Celtic languages ‘have right’ (Irish _tá an ceart agat_). Only Welsh (_ti’n iawn_) and Scottish Gaelic (_tha thu ceart_) ‘are right’, and I don’t know if they got it from English… – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 16 '22 at 09:16
  • @JanusBahsJacquet Maybe not common usage, but you do occasionally see in literary works where the author wishes to sound récherché a construction such as "You have the right of it", perhaps in the context of a judge determining which of two plaintiffs to favour. I have a vague and maybe inaccurate memory of seeing it in Tolkien. – Prime Mover Jul 17 '22 at 12:51
  • @PrimeMover Yes, having the right of it works too. It’s just the plain ‘have right’ that, for whatever reason, has fallen out of favour. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 17 '22 at 12:55
6

Note that there is at least one context in which one can have years in English: when they are years of something. (Laurel already brought up another, different sense.) For example, someone can “have ten years of experience.” or “fifty years of marriage,” in the same way that we can have twenty minutes of running, an hour of music, or sixteen hectares of farmland.

This can mean that some task lasted for that length of time. It can also mean that something accumulated over that length of time. The latter can also be phrased, “years’ worth of ....”

Davislor
  • 6,333
  • 8
  • 34
  • 2
    As far as I can tell, this is the logic of languages that say "I have X years." In Brazilian Portuguese, we may literally say "He has 20 years of life", we just often leave the last bit implied. – San Diago Jul 14 '22 at 21:55
  • 1
    @SanDiago Right. In English, we also give our names with, “I am ...,” while some other languages would literally say, “I call myself ...” or something else. It’s very arbitrary. – Davislor Jul 14 '22 at 21:57
  • 2
    I feel this shows the contrast. Having X years of experience in some trade is an asset -- you have that. Being born 32 years ago just is. The odder "I have 32 years" feels like you think mere age is an asset. – Owen Reynolds Jul 14 '22 at 22:40
  • 5
    @Davislor while you're at it, in American English, "I have a friend _named_ John", but in British English, "I have a friend _called_ John". As an American, every time I hear a Brit say a person is called `xxxx`, I wonder to myself, "yeah, but what's his actual name?". I do actually have a friend _called_ Jake, but he's _named_ Jeffery (that what his driver's license says, but I've never _called_ him that), so there's actually a distinction. Amusingly, his wife calls him "Jacob" when she's annoyed with him. – FreeMan Jul 15 '22 at 13:09
  • 1
    @OwenReynolds Perhaps that is the case in violent countries where just being alive is an accomplishment in and of itself. – San Diago Jul 15 '22 at 19:12
  • 2
    @FreeMan I don’t recognise that as a AmE/BrE distinction at all. I’ve heard lots of Americans use ‘an X called Y’ to refer to its name with no hint of a distinction between whether they’re stating an official or unofficial name; and conversely, ‘an X named Y’ is perfectly normal in BrE as well. In some cases, _called_ is the only natural option; e.g., at the pharmacy, “I’m looking for a drug called something like moxifloxi-something” is natural, whereas using _named_ there would sound quite odd, despite the fact that the drug is quite likely not actually _called_ its difficult name by most. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 16 '22 at 09:26
  • @JanusBahsJacquet maybe it's particular to the Brits I hear from most often - those doing BTCC & F1 coverage. – FreeMan Jul 16 '22 at 13:15
  • 2
    @FreeMan No, I don’t think it’s particular to them. I wasn’t saying that Brits don’t use _called_ this way, but that Americans _do_. I must admit that, comparing Ngrams for “a friend called” and “a friend named” in the [American corpus](https://bit.ly/3yKPmUd) and the [British corpus](https://bit.ly/3cjSejx), it is clear that _named_ is more common in AmE (+250%), while _called_ is more common in BrE (+75%) – though with “mother is called/named”, _called_ is more common in both. So there _is_ somewhat of a dialectal difference that I’d never noticed before, but a subtle one. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 16 '22 at 13:35
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet - that dialectical difference first struck me in 1969 on hearing a certain Johnny Cash song https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_Named_Sue – Michael Harvey Jul 16 '22 at 23:41
  • @MichaelHarvey I have to admit, we Americans love our lawsuits. – Davislor Jul 16 '22 at 23:43
  • 1
    @SanDiago Interestingly, if you were to say of someone in English "He has 20 years of life", you would be understood as meaning "he has 20 years of life left to him", in other words, he is expected to die after 20 years have gone past. – Prime Mover Jul 17 '22 at 12:53
  • **this discussion is just priceless!️** – William Martens Jul 17 '22 at 19:15
  • @FreeMan I was about to explain why your American/British distinction between "called" and "named" isn't a real thing when JanusBahsJacquet did for me! – Robbie Goodwin Jul 18 '22 at 20:37
  • TBH, @JanusBahsJacquet, I've almost _never_ heard Americans saying something like, "hey mom, I met a boy, he's _called_ Johnny". But, I've also not heard every American speak over the last 50 years. How 'bout we just agree to disagree on this one. ;) – FreeMan Jul 19 '22 at 12:36
4

This fits a general pattern

Rather than being specific to the concept of age, this usage follows a general pattern in English in which adjectives / qualities of a noun are often expressed as 'states of being' when in a Romance language they would often be expressed as qualities that the noun 'has' or possesses.

Some examples comparing English and Spanish (where 'to have' is the verb tener):

I am twenty-six. / Yo tengo viente seis. [I have 26.]

Are you hungry? / Tienes hambre? [Do you have hunger?]

He is thirsty. / El tiene sed. [He has thirst.]

She is hot. / Ella tiene calor. [She has heat.]

We are sleepy. / Nosotros tenemos sueño. [We have sleepiness.]

They are skilled. / Ellos tienen habilidades. [They have abilities.]

As to why the general pattern is this, that is a much deeper question that other answers have addressed in terms of the historical development of the languages. Suffice to say, it is not specific to the concept of age.

Kirt
  • 1,762
  • 10
  • 16
1

Incuriously, all you could find was "this is just cultural/ how the language evolved" because that's all there is to it: this is about the nature of language, not logic.

The French say "I have Y years” because theirs is a Romance language, based on Latin. The English use “I am Y years old” because like modern German, theirs is anciently a Germanic tongue…

Volumes have been written on the differences and they are for degree-level study, not SE forums.

The very words “language” and “tongue” are, respectively, Romance and Germanic and while many of us know they are almost perfectly synonymous, at the same time all of us know they are very, very different.

Since both seem to matter what’s your own native tongue, please? Will you say which “most” languages you know of, or Edit the Question to leave that out?

No logic is needed to make the construction "I am X years old" possible. If it was, no such idea could ever come from “the fact that, in English, we modify/specify words by placing words before the word we want to modify/specify” for the simple reason that that’s not true; we might sometimes, but never necessarily.

Ignoring any idea of “logic” will you please consider the very different example of a person walking towards a door?

English speakers say simply “I approach the door.”

French speakers say “I approach myself to the door.” (“je m'approche (de) la porte…”

Exact translation might never be possible, precisely because the languages do not work the same way; do not follow the same “logic”

Native English speakers never "say…" their age. They either "state…" their age, or "say that their age is…" Does that difference matter, or help?

More purely Germanic languages do, and to an extent ancient English did insist but modern English has no real interest in word order. There is no reason for modern English to choose "That was done well" over "That was well done" whatever anywhen German, ancient Latin or modern French suggest.

What track you’re on isn’t clear but in your example "900 years old” might well “behave”, though it could too rarely “be behaving” in the same way as "very old” in English, and then not generally but only in particular circumstances.

What information you’ve found about numerals as adjectives or adverbs might be as conflicting as possible and to that extent, it necessarily is nothing like “the available information…” Sorry.

Nothing more specific about numbers, or this particular construction, applies here and still, all you could find was "this is just cultural/ how the language evolved" because that’s all there is to it: this is about the nature of language, not logic.

Robbie Goodwin
  • 1,053
  • 5
  • 13
  • French people can (and do) say e.g.'je suis agé de 21 ans'. – Michael Harvey Jul 16 '22 at 23:43
  • 1
    and there you go… – Robbie Goodwin Jul 16 '22 at 23:58
  • When it comes to cooking steaks, there is a vast difference between "that was done well" (typically meaning medium rare to medium) versus "that was well done" (cooked to the point of being overcooked). – David Hammen Jul 17 '22 at 07:42
  • 1
    Old English actually had a more flexible word order than Modern English does. Old English was much more inflected, and so (for example) the subject versus object of a verb would be indicated by the inflections on those nouns. Thus, various orders of subject, verb, and object were allowed, because the meaning was still clear. In contrast, Modern English has lost most of those inflections, so it relies much more on word order to indicate grammatical function (e.g., "Cats chase mice" vs. "Mice chase cats"). – zunojeef Jul 17 '22 at 23:11
  • @zunojeef That might depend on your definition of "Old English" and I suggest that generally, inflected languages are less, not more flexible… which is a major reason for inflection. How could "Cats chase mice" vs "Mice chase cats" ever come into this, particularly as an example of anything? If you can find any Germanic language as flexible as modern English, why not list it and provide three or four examples? – Robbie Goodwin Jul 18 '22 at 20:44
  • @RobbieGoodwin Old English was the language spoken in England from about 500-1100 AD. In Old English, "se hund bit þone cyning" and "þone cyning bit se hund" both meant "The dog bit the king," despite different word orders. The inflections on "se hund" ("the dog," marked as a subject) and "þone cyning" ("the king," marked as a direct object) made the meaning clear with either order, so word order was flexible. Modern English is less flexible: you can't switch the order from "The dog bit the king" to "The king bit the dog" without changing the meaning. Same for "Cats chase mice." – zunojeef Sep 20 '22 at 17:19
  • @zunojeef If you're suggesting that in broad translation, 'se hund bit þone cyning' and 'þone cyning bit se hund' might express the same outcome "The dog bit the king…" that might work. If you're suggesting 'se hund bit þone cyning' and 'þone cyning bit se hund' are identical, then why not try to explain how, exactly? – Robbie Goodwin Sep 20 '22 at 20:27
  • @zunojeef Further, how does any of that relate to the Question? – Robbie Goodwin Sep 20 '22 at 21:37
  • @zunojeef I confess, I don't know the meaning of 'þone…' either here or in general. Logically, that would seem to mean 'the' yet somehow, I doubt that. What is the meaning of 'þone…' please? – Robbie Goodwin Sep 20 '22 at 21:49
  • @RobbieGoodwin In Old English (OE), "se" and "þone" are both definite articles for singular masculine nouns. "Se" is for the subject case. while "þone" is for the direct object case. They both translate to "the" in Modern English (ME). In the ME sentence "The dog bit the king," we know who did the biting (the dog) and who got bitten (the king) because, in ME syntax, the subject is BEFORE the verb while the object is AFTER the verb (in MOST cases). Thus, in ME "The dog bit the king," we don't have much flexibility in changing the word order without changing the meaning. (continued -->) – zunojeef Oct 17 '22 at 12:46
  • @RobbieGoodwin However, in OE, there is more flexibility. We can translate ME "The dog bit the king" to OE using two different word orders: #1: "Se hund bit þone cyning" or #2: "þone cyning bit se hund." Sentences #1 and #2 mean the same thing, even though the word order of "se hund" (the dog) and "þone cyning" (the king) is opposite. This is because OE indicates subject vs object using grammatical case, not word order. In both #1 and #2, we know that "se hund" (the dog) is the subject due to the use of "se," and that "þone cyning" (the king) is the direct object, due to the use of "þone." – zunojeef Oct 17 '22 at 13:07
  • @RobbieGoodwin I'm not sure why you would doubt that "þone" means "the," since that is, in fact, what it means. Perhaps your skepticism is related to the use of the unfamiliar letter "þ" (which is called "thorn"). The OE letter "þ" is equivalent to ME "th," as in the words "the" or "those." With that in mind, perhaps it will be easier for you to accept "þone" as a determiner, alonside its ME relatives which include "the," "this" "that," "these," and "those." Side Note: Modern Icelandic still uses "þ" in its writing system, as in the words "þarna" (there) and "þorp" (village). – zunojeef Oct 17 '22 at 13:30
  • @zunojeef It's kind of you to remind me of the OE I haven't looked at for 50 years and how does any of this relate to age, or years, or being or having either? – Robbie Goodwin Oct 17 '22 at 15:01
  • @RobbieGoodwin You tell me. You brought it up. – zunojeef Oct 30 '22 at 14:10
  • @zunojeef Could you go back to the OQ and tell us what anything you've Posted helps to explain? – Robbie Goodwin Nov 01 '22 at 21:14
  • @RobbieGoodwin Anyone skilled in the art of conversation could tell you that the richest & most engaging dialogues entail an exchange of diverse & contrasting ideas. Conversations are valuable because they promote the exploration of connections among subject matters that might at first seem unrelated. Conversations encourage people to discover new perspectives, challenge their existing knowledge & assumptions, & make unexpected realizations. If one’s goal were to stick to the narrow scope of a single topic, then something like a lecture or textbook chapter might be a more suitable format. – zunojeef Nov 03 '22 at 19:04
  • @zunojeef Of course anyone skilled in the art of conversation could tell you that the richest & most engaging dialogues entail an exchange of diverse & contrasting ideas and what has that to do with the "I am X years old" or the logic behind that? Again could you go back to the OQ and tell us what anything you've Posted helps to explain… this time at clear risk of being reported? – Robbie Goodwin Nov 06 '22 at 22:39
0

In Italian, which like Spanish is a Romance language, if you want to ask someone their age you will typically ask:

Quanti anni hai / ha?

Which translated, literally, is

“How many years have you got?”
“How many years do you have?”

But there is also the alternative

“Ma quanto sei vecchio/a!?” “But how old you are!?”

It suggests the person being asked is very advanced in their years. It can be said teasingly, as a criticism,or to express incredulity. As an example, I found this headline

Tartaruga, quanto sei vecchia?” “Tortoise/turtle how old are you?”

I don't know if Spanish has the same usage, but asking how old a bridge, building or painting is not that unusual in Italian. “Sono di Genova. Allora me lo dice quanto è vecchio questo orologio?” “I'm from Genoa. So, are you going to tell me how old this watch is?

In English, people don't imagine owning years as they do with privileges, objects, and possessions. Instead, the question “How old are you?” is primarily focused on the idea of people aging (getting older) not in the number of years they possess.

Mari-Lou A
  • 23,918
  • 12
  • 65
  • 110
  • Sorry; there is no language, including Italian, Spanish or any other Romance tongue, nor original Latin, in which what you suggest is true. There is only a tiny chance that “How many years have you got?” and “How many years do you have?” could be comparable, and no possibility they are "literally" interchangeable. – Robbie Goodwin Nov 06 '22 at 22:44