The front chairs are reserved to children ages/ aged 5 to 9 for the circus.

[mrmvp]

I write two sentences and I am struggling with "ages" and "aged" when mentioning individuals. I have seen both words are used in different contexts.

1. The front chairs are reserved to children ages/ aged 5 to 9 for the circus.
2. Women whose ages /who are aged 20 to 50 can have the operation with little likelihood that it's perilous.

 

[probus]

Both ages and aged are used and their meanings are identical.

 

[mrmvp]

Both ages and aged are used and their meanings are identical.

Thank you.

Could you please specify If the answers before and after slash correct? Than you, sir.

 

[tedmc]

I write have written two sentences and I am struggling with "ages" and "aged" when mention used with individuals. I have seen both words are used in different contexts as follows:

1. The front chairs are reserved to for children of ages/(no space) aged 5 to 9 for the circus.

2. Women whose ages are/who are aged 20 to 50 can have the operation with little likelihood that it's perilous (with minimum risks)

"Ages" is a noun whereas "aged" is a participle. You say a person of age 21 or a person aged 21.

 

[5jj]

1. The front chairs are reserved for children ages/ aged 5 to 9 for the circus.

2. Women whose ages /who are aged 20 to 50 can have the operation with little likelihood that it's perilous.risky.

Ages doesn't work for me.

 

[emsr2d2]

I write wrote the two sentences below and I am struggling with "ages" and "aged" when mentioning individuals. I have seen both words are used in different contexts.

1. The front chairs are reserved to for children ages/aged 5 to 9 for at the circus.
2. Women whose ages/who are aged 20 to 50 can have the operation with little likelihood that it's perilous.

1. Both are possible. Note my corrections.
2. It's almost completely grammatically incorrect! "Women aged 20 to 50 can have this operation with little risk."

Could you please specify tell me if the answers before and after the slash are correct? Thank you. sir.

Note my corrections above. Never refer to anyone here as "Sir" or "Madam". Not only is it overly formal but it suggests that you are assuming you know their gender.

 

[jutfrank]

I say the first phrase below is wrong:

reserved for children ages 5 to 9
reserved for children aged 5 to 9

With the word children removed, ages can work:

reserved for ages 5 to 9

 

[Rover_KE]

I say the first phrase below is wrong:

reserved for children ages 5 to 9
reserved for children aged 5 to 9

It’s probably fine in AmE.

 

[probus]

It’s probably fine in AmE.

Yes, that's right, it's American, but also used here in Canada.

 

[PeterCW]

I say the first phrase below is wrong:

reserved for children ages 5 to 9
reserved for children aged 5 to 9

With the word children removed, ages can work:

reserved for ages 5 to 9

If I had had article submitted in my professional life with "children ages" in it I would most certainly have changed it.

I won't argue about grammatical correctness but in BrE it simply sounds unnatural.