Pedants' Paradise

[Serial_Apologist]

Un jolie lai....

Henry VIII's favourite one?

[Serial_Apologist]

That's excellent.

I saw that too!!!

There's a similar misinterpretable statement in for next Tuesday's File on 4, on Radio 4, in Radio Times:

"Reporter Michael Buchanan hears from doctors with unblemished careers who were sacked for raising patient safety concerns. The programme reveals the toll felt by those the health service turns on, and the tactics and distortions used to end high-flying careers".



(My emphasis)

[french frank]

I saw that too!!!

Like when you inadvertently omit the word 'not' from what you're writing.

[french frank]

One aspect of language usage which is difficult to gauge is at what point a gradually increasing usage, which may not ultimately survive, tips over from being a new usage to being the unremarkable norm. I was struck by this thought on reading: "Winkleman has three children with her partner, film producer Kris Thykier, whom she married in 2000."

Is there something now socially unacceptable about calling him her husband (of 23 years)? Or is there a well-known nuance which I've missed, like they divorced in 2001 but have continued their relationship?

[kernelbogey]

I don't know anything about Winkelman's relationship. But I wonder whether, in this case, the writer is someone who believes the term 'husband' is redolent of the patriarchy - and feels they (sic) should therefore avoid it.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't know anything about Winkelman's relationship. But I wonder whether, in this case, the writer is someone who believes the term 'husband' is redolent of the patriarchy - and feels they (sic) should therefore avoid it.

When conversing with a friend these days, I nearly always use the term "partner" because either (a) I can't remember or have not been informed as to whether or not they're married, or (b) they might prefer "partner" to husband, or wife.

[french frank]

I don't know anything about Winkelman's relationship. But I wonder whether, in this case, the writer is someone who believes the term 'husband' is redolent of the patriarchy - and feels they (sic) should therefore avoid it.

Yes, there may be an idea that there is an entrenched view that 'husband' implies leadership, headship, No 1, wife No 2. I remember, probably 20, maybe 30, years ago (just looked: 1987 ) being amused at one of the election candidates referring to her 'partner' when it was well known that he was her husband - and she had taken his surname). The gender non-specific 'partner' is preferred even though there is often a confusion with business partners.

So we reach a stage where 'husband' and 'wife' become archaic along with the attudes which rendered them necessary.

[kernelbogey]

. The gender non-specific 'partner' is preferred even though there is often a confusion with business partners.

Though I've come across 'life partner' used to clarify this distinction.

.So we reach a stage where 'husband' and 'wife' become archaic along with the attudes which rendered them necessary.

I note that Sandi Toksvig, among others, uses 'wife' to refer to her partner.

Edit: It occurs to me that "Winkleman has three children with her partner, film producer Kris Thykier, whom she married in 2000." may reflect that one or more of their children was born before they were married - so 'partner' was deliberately chosen for this sentence.

[oddoneout]

Though I've come across 'life partner' used to clarify this distinction.


I note that Sandi Toksvig, among others, uses 'wife' to refer to her partner.

Edit: It occurs to me that "Winkleman has three children with her partner, film producer Kris Thykier, whom she married in 2000." may reflect that one or more of their children was born before they were married - so 'partner' was deliberately chosen for this sentence.

Same sex marriages seem happy in many cases to use husband and wife terminology for their other halves.
As far as I can make out the Winkelman children all arrived post-marriage.

[Pulcinella]

Same sex marriages seem happy in many cases to use husband and wife terminology for their other halves.
As far as I can make out the Winkelman children all arrived post-marriage.

Don't be too sure!
When our marriage was converted (free, and back-dated) from a civil partnership, we had to use the traditional marriage certificate declarations, so we lost the 'mother's occupation' field that CPs had introduced and we had to decide if we wanted to be husband to each other (afterwards we wondered what might have happened had one of us opted fo be wife!) instead of partner.
We actually stopped the proceedings at that point and questioned the wording.
It seems that the legislation had been rushed through and existing forms and formulations were used without the powers that be considering how appropriate they were.

That's a simple but sadly typical example of how poor some of this country's legislation is.

[french frank]

It occurs to me that "Winkleman has three children with her partner, film producer Kris Thykier, whom she married in 2000." may reflect that one or more of their children was born before they were married - so 'partner' was deliberately chosen for this sentence.

Though not actually as their eldest is 19-20. But, always going for what seems like the least complicated solution and in view of Pulcie's comment, 'partner' seems a good all round solution unless some wish to call themselves wives and/or husbands. This was the linguistic evolution point I was making: i suspect we are at the tipping point where husband/wife are beginning to fall out of currency. I'm sure there are similar points of language development (like 'they' used as a singular non-specific). Take the easy way out.

[smittims]

Like ff in#6034 I've often wondered when a new meaning of a word moves from being 'wrong' or 'spurious' to being correct or at least colloquially acceptable. We had this recently with 'woke' which still doesn't appear in some dictionaries yet is already changing its meaning, to the disapproval of some. And of course thee's even 'you're not allowed to use that word, because you're not a ...'.

I've campaigned against 'incredible' used to mean 'remarkable' and 'cathartic' used to mean 'useful'. But I'm coming to think it's futile. The only trouble is: what do you say when you really mean 'incredible' or 'cathartic'?

[Pulcinella]

Like ff in#6034 I've often wondered when a new meaning of a word moves from being 'wrong' or 'spurious' to being correct or at least colloquially acceptable. We had this recently with 'woke' which still doesn't appear in some dictionaries yet is already changing its meaning, to the disapproval of some. And of course thee's even 'you're not allowed to use that word, because you're not a ...'.

I've campaigned against 'incredible' used to mean 'remarkable' and 'cathartic' used to mean 'useful'. But I'm coming to think it's futile. The only trouble is: what do you say when you really mean 'incredible' or 'cathartic'?

Literally incredible....etc?

[smittims]

Yes, or 'absolutely incredible' , as with 'absolutely devastated' which often means ' I was disappointed'.

It takes me back to Dr. Johnson, whose landlady found him in bed with the housemaid.

'Dr. Johnson, I am surprised'

'No, Madam. I am surprised; you are astonished.'

[vinteuil]

Yes, or 'absolutely incredible' , as with 'absolutely devastated' which often means ' I was disappointed'.

It takes me back to Dr. Johnson, whose landlady found him in bed with the housemaid.

'Dr. Johnson, I am surprised'

'No, Madam. I am surprised; you are astonished.'

... my inner pedant and committed Johnsonian can not let this pass. It was that other lexicographer, Noah Webster, of whom this anecdote is related.