Is it right to say He is still alive at 95 years of age.?
-
2Saying 'he is still alive' is only slightly better than 'he isn't dead yet'. Why not just say 'He is 95 years old'? At 95, a person knows that the grave beckons (as it does for us all, in fact), but they may not like to be reminded of that fact. Many people may feel that it is tactless to bring death into a conversation.– Michael HarveyCommented Oct 10 at 8:25
-
Tactless or 'bad luck'.– Michael HarveyCommented Oct 10 at 9:53
-
Of course a doctor, scientist, etc, might well say 'He is still alive at 95 years of age, despite having smoked 20 cigars a day since he was aged 12', or had ten heart attacks, or having been given a week to live when he was a baby.– Michael HarveyCommented Oct 10 at 9:59
-
Please use the "edit" button below the question to tell more about why you're concerned. The answer "sure, why not" is not very helpful to you. I'm voting to close the question for now for lacking details or clarity but will retract that vote if it's edited to be clear.– Andy BonnerCommented Oct 10 at 13:41
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
Short answer: Yes. Although, while common enough, it's not a super common way of phrasing it. It sounds more natural to omit the 'years of age' bit.
You could phrase it that way, but some people might find that slightly derogatory- it seems like you are calling him old or you are surprised he has lasted this long.
A better way would be to simply say “He is currently 95 years old.” Stating someone’s age automatically implies that they are still alive. Deceased people are not generally considered to have a current age.
-
I agree. It's like saying 'Why doesn't he hurry up and die?'. I know that many young people feel that way about the elderly, but it's not nice to hear it in their words. Commented Oct 10 at 16:24