Orphaned, at what age?

There is no fixed universal age cut-off for being called an orphan. My sense is that someone who is too young to be able to live independently would qualify for that appellation.

Wills in some states in the US are settled in "Orphans' Court". An orphan in the "legal" definition is a minor.

.
Today, the Orphans' Court hears all matters involving decedents' estates whic

It seems to me that only minors can be properly called orphans. Of course, that brings up the question "What's a minor?". Each jurisdiction (state, country, province, whatever) defines, by law, what a minor is.

This is an interesting question, and oddly, I was just thinking about it a few days ago. I had met someone - an adult - and in the course of the conversation he referred to himself as an orphan, although he had been an adult when his parents died. I think he still feels their loss very keenly, and when people speak of their parents, he is very aware of the fact that he no longer has either parent

Grammar GeekHow could you possibly "correct" a person who described himself that way?

Well, I wouldn't correct him, neither would he convince me that he is an orphan. While he may have been orphaned at a young age, if he is now an adult he can't be called an orphan. And he certainly can't be called an orphan if he was an adult when his parents died.

I

And then there was a the case of the teenaged brothers who murdered their parents, and then begged the court to have pity on them. After all they were poor orphans.

< So in this case, his "orphan-hood" is more a matter of mind and spirit than a legal definition. >

Now that is an interesting distinction.

RayHAnd he certainly can't be called an orphan if he was an adult when his parents died.

What difference would it make, anywhere and to anyone? There's no special tax filing status, no preferred seating at the movie theater, no discounts at a restaurant. If someone was very much conscious of the loss of their parents, who would care if that person th

< which is what I'm talking about with my mental, rather than legal, status) as "ridiculous." It's how people feel about themselves.>

Like those people who claim to be one-tenth Lakota, Navaho, Acoma, Anishinabe, etc. and insist they feel it. ;-)

Grammar GeekIt's how people feel about themselves.

How people feel about themselves isn't what's at issue. Redefining well established words for no good reason is. It seems to me that a large part of what happens on these forums is explaining the meanings and subtle differences between words. Promiscuously corrupting the meaning of words because of how someone

Dictionaries say an orphan is a "kid", and I agree with that, because the word is associated with children. When people think of an orphan, I guess most just think of a "kid". However, that's the "common" meaning, and it's not really fixed, especially because there don't seem to be other alternative words. So I think I agree with GG:

Grammar Geek. I think he still feels th