Random queries no. 111

As I said in the entry, I don't dispute that the word is in general usage, but all words are not equal, and it remains poor usage. I'm no Lynn Truss, and I don't lecture people about their misuse of English, but language does matter to me, a lot. It's about conveying nuance and subtext, not merely crude transfer of information. 'You know what I mean' is inadequate – say what you mean.

'Kids' belittles both the speaker and the subjects, reducing children to mere cutesy abstractions of baby animals. As a term of endearment in private, it's acceptable, but it has no place in general conversation between strangers, or in published writing (as dictionary definitions acknowledge). It also has lowest-common-denominator populist connotations; politicians use it to imply a connection to the council estates. It grates.

I certainly don't object to language evolution, but it doesn't automatically follow that every new usage is to be actively welcomed, irrespective of quality.

No, I don't recall 'kids' having this meaning when I was a, er, child, at least not in 'formal' everyday English between adults. It may have been private slang, just as a parent might address a toddler as "my little lamb", but I'm not aware of it being used in, say, parliamentary debate or a newspaper article.

Actually, try that: every time you encounter the word 'kid', mentally substitute 'little lamby'. I'm confident that you'll soon see what I mean about saccharine belittlement.