Double describers go (much) too far

It was no big deal, but it rang a little bell in the back of my brain. Someone used the phrase "young child." Ting-a-ling. The little bell rang. As a knee-jerk reaction to the bell, I thought, "What other kind of child can there be but a young one?" I thought it, I didn't say it.

Even a thoughtful, kind-hearted, scholarly wordsmith such as I might entertain such a thought (I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face), but it would take a smart aleck to actually say it. How long has it been since I have been called a smart aleck? I suppose it's been at least a couple of days.

After congratulating myself for not being my usual smart-aleck self, I began to wonder why so many of us, I'm including myself here, use what I call "double describers," henceforth to be called DDs.

The aforementioned "young child" is one. All by itself, "child" describes a kid, who is young. Young describes what already has been described