tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33159158.post4492807734686217420..comments2024-02-25T20:07:56.114-06:00Comments on Mr. Verb: Lexical gaps and 'fixing' languageMr. Verbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04048931596146402872noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33159158.post-90444088752260679942007-06-25T04:02:00.000-05:002007-06-25T04:02:00.000-05:00When we were dating I suggested 'leman' to my...uh...When we were dating I suggested 'leman' to my...uh...girlfriend. She thought it was cute but it wasn't going to work because it sounded like 'lemon' to everyone. And that sounded like she kept breaking down.<BR/><BR/><I>Lover</I> has that smarmy red velvet ring to it. Like we have to say it "luvaaah..."<BR/><BR/>I'm thinking that <I>other</I> might rise to the challenge. It can borrow the momentum from 'significant other' and it's not as unwieldy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33159158.post-17044751632934171572007-06-24T21:02:00.000-05:002007-06-24T21:02:00.000-05:00on the use of mistress, this is problematic becaus...on the use of mistress, this is problematic because it is one sided. Imagine changing the genders: "Mrs. W got canned by the World Bank because she showed special favors to her mister." <BR/><BR/>Also, mistress works only when talking about something that takes place in France. Speaking of which what do the French call a male mistress?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33159158.post-1898785670634602992007-06-24T18:57:00.000-05:002007-06-24T18:57:00.000-05:00Wow, go out for the afternoon and miss a flood of ...Wow, go out for the afternoon and miss a flood of comments. <BR/><BR/>Yeah, part of the issue is surely that this is socially sensitive for many people, presumably enough that it's hard for the media to figure out what level of directness versus euphemism is appropriate. That's not an issue for me personally, and I *still* have the problem, though.<BR/><BR/>On 'fuck buddy', yes, the ads-l discussion made the 'benefits without obligation' angle pretty clear, but that surprised me a little since I only ever knew a couple of people who used it and they were clearly using it for couples. (I should have noted that in the post, obviously.) Another reason that's not a viable option!<BR/><BR/>Isn't Wolfowitz's marital status unclear? I remember something about folks being unable to determine whether he was divorced or still married to a woman he was no longer involved with. Maybe I missed the resolution of that story?<BR/><BR/>But the Ridger is right about the biggest issue: It's older unmarried couples where it's odd. I've gotten used to 'bf' and 'gf' for younger couples, but for old timers -- no good solution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33159158.post-8424466866561402892007-06-24T18:40:00.000-05:002007-06-24T18:40:00.000-05:00For a married man, sure. But the bigger question i...For a married man, sure. But the bigger question is what to call a romantically involved couple of singles. I remember well the first time I read of a 40-something politician having a "boyfriend" - it was very weird. It's gotten less so, but it's still odd.The Ridger, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01538111197270563075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33159158.post-31277936654858545772007-06-24T18:37:00.000-05:002007-06-24T18:37:00.000-05:00Call me archaic or whatever you will, but given th...Call me archaic or whatever you will, but given the fact that he's already married, <I>mistress</I> sounds pretty fitting here. It may cause a little cough at first, but for me <I>mistress</I> sounds like exactly what an older, married man would have on the side; particularly if that man is quite well off.GAChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11756535843412579846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33159158.post-82570007367925825712007-06-24T15:36:00.000-05:002007-06-24T15:36:00.000-05:00The ridger is right about fuck buddy, the main poi...The ridger is right about fuck buddy, the main point (beyond the sex) is that there <I>isn't</I> a romantic relationship involved. "Friends with benefits" works as well, but is too unwieldy to use here. Given the circumstances, I would recommend saying "Wolfowitz's wench". I think that has a nice ring to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33159158.post-23578725169890332362007-06-24T14:31:00.000-05:002007-06-24T14:31:00.000-05:00On second (serious) thought, isn't the essence of ...On second (serious) thought, isn't the essence of "fuck buddy" that there <I>isn't</I> a romantic relationship?<BR/><BR/>And, I wonder, what's wrong with "lover"? <BR/><BR/>Or we could revive "leman".The Ridger, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01538111197270563075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33159158.post-48058185817319819012007-06-24T12:28:00.000-05:002007-06-24T12:28:00.000-05:00I believe the lack of an appropriate word is God's...I believe the lack of an appropriate word is God's way of telling us to cut it out.<BR/><BR/>Well, no, I don't...<BR/><BR/>I do believe it's partly because as a society we like to pretend all those folks will get married someday.The Ridger, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01538111197270563075noreply@blogger.com