We've discussed here before what an adult girlfriend and boyfriend should be called. In Britain, I believe, they are called partners, is that right? I know that Bob's friend, Phil, called his girlfriend his partner. In the U.S. that would mean a gay or lesbian relationship. So someone in a letter to "Ask Amy" has developed a new term that he hopes sticks: "commitmate." He said he had "no idea how new words spread into common usage." I did find 328 citations of it on Google, including this (the same guy must have written it.)

I doubt it will make it. Thoughts?

Partner is commonly used for all co-habiters; some people even use it for husbands and wives. My belief is that those who refer to their spouses as "partners" are simply making a point - that it's nobody's business except their own as to the precise relationship.

I call my partner my wife; she calls me her husband; we have used that nomenclature for the last 45 years.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
In the U.S. that would mean a gay or lesbian relationship.

Since when!?!?!? It's bad enough that I can't be gay any more without being thought homosexual, but I shall NOT relinquish "partner" to the exclusive use of non-heterosexuals!

Asa, going beyond merely curmudgeonly to positively PISSED OFF prescriptivist!

We have here, perhaps, an important insight into how language changes. Both gay and partner have shifted in meaning for two slightly different but related reasons. The reason folks complain about gay being ambiguous mainly has to do with heterosexuals being uncomfortable somehow implying in their choice of words to be less than 100% straight. I always ask people why they do not use gay in one of its many other meanings, both positive and negative, and it boils down to a fear of others thinking them gay in the newer and homosexual sense of the word. Same with partner. I have found myself referring to the person with whom I ran a computer consultancy in the late '80s and early '90s, a business partner, because people who did not know us social, would assume we were a couple, rather than us both having spouses at home. It seems to me that the problem with cohabitation is that many married people no longer cohabit (i.e., live under the same roof). Anyway, this is one of the middling evils of peevology, the ability to make people nervous about how to speak. In this case, about word selection. But, I find myself moderating my language in all sorts of situations: e.g., not using expletives or blasphemies in front of a priest or vicar, not using words like fecund or puerile in the presence of children. I once found myself in a spirited argument about Joseph Conrad, and realized at one point I or my interlocutor would bring up Conrad's The Nigger of the Narcissus. The problem? The fellow I was discussing this with is an African-American. Well, it got mentioned and nobody fainted or expired, but i definitely spent some of the time I could've been going through my argument mentally given over to processing the N-word situation. I am just saying that people who say everything is allowed verbals selection wise are either insensitive or oblivious. We all of us adjust our register, etc., while speaking or writing.

quote:

I call my partner my wife; she calls me her husband; we have used that nomenclature for the last 45 years.

Well, this was about what to call unmarried girlfriends/boyfriends so keep calling Margaret your "wife."

Yes, I hear you, z, though I think there are probably two issues here. First, it is only polite (considerate) not to swear in front of kids or priests and rabbis. I don't see that as being "politically correct" or a peevologist. However, there is the other issue where you hate to say (I can't even write it here!) the "n" word; or it makes you uncomfortable to talk about being gay (happy) or to talk about your partner (business). It's this latter politically correct issue that sometimes is hard to deal with.

All in all, though, commitmate won't make it, I think. Commit? Isn't a characteristic of a girl/boyfriend that there isn't a commitment? I've known many a girlfriend who has complained about that!

FWB - that's what's happening these days.

quote:

Well, this was about what to call unmarried girlfriends/boyfriends so keep calling Margaret your "wife." Wink

Indeed. But in England married couples frequently refer to their husbands/wives as "partners". My point was that the expression now seems common here for any cohabiting couple, be they homosexual, heterosexual, married or unmarried.

At times I've found the most apt term is terrorist.

quote:

We all of us adjust our register, etc., while speaking or writing.

Indeed. It isn't always easy, though. I was in Virginia Beach, VA a couple of years ago, and was very surprised to find that they have a no public cussing law! When one is used to using somewhat "colorful" language, it's pretty difficult to maintain decorum 24/7, whereas it's easy enough with a small group or individual for a short time.

I suspect their ordinance wouldn't withstand a Supreme Court challenge, but it seems nobody's challenged it.

quote:

I was in Virginia Beach, VA a couple of years ago, and was very surprised to find that they have a no public cussing law!

What's one of those?

cussing

A non-rhotic, variant of cursing, as in swearing (link).

quote:

A non-rhotic, variant of cursing, as in swearing (link).

Oh I knew what "cussing" is - but what's a "Public cussing law"? Is it a law that prohibits the use of certain words?

So far as I am aware there's no law in England about swearing in public - although there is a catch-all law about behaviour liable to disturb the peace.

Several communities have laws prohibiting swearing (usually if it's in earshot of children). A Michigan man overturned his boat in a river several years ago and spewed out some harsh words near a camp in the presence of kids. He was arrested for cursing and at his trial everything he said was spoken in the courtroom several times. So you can't say it in public but lawyers can make you repeat it in court.

quote:

So far as I am aware

There's the key...

FWIW, here are a few sites on that: Yahoo Answers and
BBC.

[technical editing]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

So it's more or less as I wrote: it's not wrong to swear unless by so doing you could cause a breach of the peace. Remember, too, that in England we have Common Law (and no written Constitution) which basically means that we can do what we like unless a judge somewhere, sometime, has said it's wrong.

Of course we also now also have much Statute Law - but in the main most of our behaviour is regulated by Common Law.

Wikipedia has a good article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_of_England

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

Being in regulation, in my field it's called being too prescriptive. I wouldn't have expected any sort of law or ordinance about that; England is more prescriptive in that than I might have thought.

I would say that Common Law is far less prescriptive than Statute Law.

Well, I am talking about the statutes, and not just the regulatory ones.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Well, I am talking about the statutes, and not just the regulatory ones.

Which piece of English Statute Law was it that you felt was more prescriptive than the equivalent US Statute?