age

i have some difficulties with this sentence:"This is for children ages three to twelve. "

1.why *ages* is being used rather than *age*?

2.if we use a complete sentence to discrbe the *children* here,what could we say?can i say *This is for children who ages three to twelve. *?or *This is for children whose ages are from three to twelve. *?

I suppose an "age" in this case represents a particular year or age a person is at and therefore saying "ages" covers multiple years, in this case, from 3 to 12.

I would say the second sentence is better, it is grammatically correct. First one doesn't sound right

Zhao,

You raise a valid point. The internet provides examples of both ways of saying it: e.g. "...Essential Montessori for Age Three to Twelve" "...piano lessons to children three to twelve years of age." plus " A magazine for parents with children ages three to twelve ... " So, there is no hard and fast rule in English as to how to say it.

the *age* here is used as a verb or a noun?

Here "age" is used as a noun. 'Age' can be used as a verb too in which it is a synonym for "to grow old" as in "A Japanese study found that farmers and truck drivers age more quickly than doctors and lawyers."

This sounds right to me:

"This is for children aged three to twelve. "

Geoff_One,

Your right. This is a fourth possibility and probably the most common form in English (at least literary English) if the internet is any indication.

What I meant by correct is:

"This is for children ages three to twelve. "
*This is for children whose ages are from three to twelve.*

and incorrect:

*This is for children who ages three to twelve. *

Brennus is right in that here "age" is used as a noun but that it can also be used as a verb. In sentence that I see as incorrect because "age" in that sentence is used as a verb. It says that "the children are aging" but the addition of "three to twelve" makes it not non-sensical.

>This sounds right to me: "This is for children aged three to twelve. " [Geoff_One]

I like 'ages' but believe that this may be a difference in regional dialect. On the net as a whole 'ages' seems to be most common, but in the UK 'aged' is by far the most common.

Yahoo results (net)
"children ages three to" 74,400
"children aged three to" 51,500
"children age three to" 1,550

Yahoo results (UK only)
"children aged three" 5,780
"children ages three" 77
"children age three" 91

Correction: The UK searches also ended in 'to'.

I look at this sentence: "This is for children ages three to twelve. " and it makes sense to me, but I always thought it was just shortened and missing the "of".

It should have been: "This is for children of ages three to twelve. "

I guess I must have rationalized things strangely when I was younger since nobody else suggested this.

All three forms are correct. I tend to say "ages," myself.

Ages is used when the speaker has several distinct ages in mind. Age is used when the speaker perceives age as a continuum. Aged is used when the speaker strongly perceives age as an attribute of the individual (like eye color or nationality). So it all just depends on what the speaker has in mind.

Quoting Tiffany: <<I look at this sentence: "This is for children ages three to twelve. " and it makes sense to me, but I always thought it was just shortened and missing the "of".

It should have been: "This is for children of ages three to twelve. "

I guess I must have rationalized things strangely when I was younger since nobody else suggested this.>>

Absolutely. To me, without close inspection, it looks bizarre without "of", as though "children ages" is a period in time, like the "dark ages". Or perhaps as though something is aging (e.g. child ages three years). So, yes, it is an abbreviated wording.

I prefer "This is for children aged three to twelve.".