Gay marriage thread

[Julien Sorel]

I don't consult Blogs, I consult Dictionaries. Sorry if that's caused any offence.

No offence. Just even more astonishment at your brass neck. It's the blog (set up by) for the Oxford Dictionaries. Not a random blog. The Oxford Dictionaries Blog.

Obviously they are only lexicographers who work on the Oxford Dictionaries so what would they know?

[Richard Barrett]

When we go to a business meeting and are told to wear a suit we reach for a jacket and trousers.

Unless "we" are female, for example. As for dictionaries, everyone knows that they're frequently changed to follow usage, not the other way around. (edit: ... as quicker posters than me have already pointed out)

[scottycelt]

And this is a married couple, Mr GG.

http://graphicriver.net/item/married-couple/33567

[MrGongGong]

No offence. Just even more astonishment at your brass neck. It's the blog (set up by) for the Oxford Dictionaries. Not a random blog. The Oxford Dictionaries Blog.

Obviously they are only lexicographers who work on the Oxford Dictionaries so what would they know?

Priceless

They obviously know less than the cardinals who don't appear to know Jack (as they say , but probably NOT in your dictionary !)

[scottycelt]

And so, of course, is this:

Yes it's a suit. The lady isn't wearing no jacket and two skirts or vice-versa. She's wearing a combination of two different garments, So she's wearing a suit.

She's got the general idea!

[Flosshilde]

A suit means the combination of a jacket and trousers. Nothing else.

Well, you obviously know what a suit is

What's a suite?

If Homosexuals

Capitalised now, are we? Has he put us in quotes yet?


I sense that scotty feels that he's clinging on to the edge of a cliff by his fingertips, and it's rapidly crumbling.

[MrGongGong]

Capitalised now, are we? Has he put us in quotes yet?
.

I think he wants you back in the wardrobe

[jean]

And this is a married couple, Mr GG.

http://graphicriver.net/item/married-couple/33567

I googled married couple too, and a little further down the page I got this:

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2013/03/08/351819.jpg

[Julien Sorel]

Current OED (Oxford English Dictionary) definition of marriage as a noun:

1: the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: she has three children from a previous marriage

[mass noun] the state of being married: women want equality in marriage

(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.

2: a combination or mixture of elements: her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip hop

It places your definition first because that is (a) the historically accepted definition (historically: in other words, subject to change. Not Ideal, Absolute, atemporal) (b) it is the most commonly used definition at present. The additional (in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex reflects the fact that (a) a new definition of marriage is accepted in some places (b) the use of the noun marriage is changing, broadening.

As the (excellent and informative) blog the Oxford Dictionaries runs and Oxford Dictionaries lexicographers write (and which you so snootily dismissed), it's possible that the definition will further change to mean something as simple as the formal union of two people, typically as recognized by law. Or it may not. Lexicographers strive to capture the shifting uses of words in their definitions. A dictionary from 1913 will not be the same as a dictionary from 1963 which will not be the same as a dictionary from 2003.

The remark on the blog - "dictionaries are generally apolitical entities – the people who compile them really do not (and indeed cannot) allow their feelings on whether same-sex marriage should or should not be allowed to influence whether or not they think that word should be in the dictionary" - is in my experience typical of lexicographers' thoughtfulness and scrupulous attention to the pragmatics of their task.

Unless you have a divinely inspired dictionary which renders all other dictionaries secular monstrosities, then the more recent the dictionary you consult the less it will endorse your I consult dictionaries line. Because it will include something about same sex marriage.

[jean]

Yes it's a suit. The lady isn't wearing no jacket and two skirts or vice-versa. She's wearing a combination of two different garments, So she's wearing a suit.

This one's missed the point, then:

[scottycelt]

If the compilers of a dictionary, aware that you may have unrealistic expectations of their product, write blog entries to set you straight [sic], you would do well to consider them.

No, the compilers are simply noting that the word has recently been hi-jacked by some to mean something different and there are therefore 'moves' towards a change of meaning. The meaning of the word remains the same.

It also warns that those who compile dictionaries should not be swayed by their own prejudices when deciding to alter any meaning.

Precisely ...

[Julien Sorel]

Well, you obviously know what a suit is

Well, in fact ...

Interestingly, just as a suit is no longer just an outfit but can mean the person inside ....

http://public.oed.com/resources/for-students-and-teachers/balderdash-and-piffle/

(I have a friend who works for the OED ).

[scottycelt]

This one's missed the point, then:

Oooo ... very nice! ... and I do like the bathing costume ...

[jean]

...the word has recently been hi-jacked by some to mean something different and there are therefore 'moves' towards a change of meaning. The meaning of the word remains the same...

Haven't heard that argument for ages!

SYDNEY, Tuesday: In a move confirming the worst fears of conservatives, representatives of the gay community today announced a list of words they intend to hijack over the next five years.

“We’re pretty happy with what we’ve done to ‘gay’,” a spokesman said joyously...

[Julien Sorel]

It also warns that those who compile dictionaries should not be swayed by their own prejudices when deciding to alter any meaning.

Precisely ...

Precisely indeed.

... the people who compile them [dictionaries] really do not (and indeed cannot) allow their feelings on whether same-sex marriage should or should not be allowed to influence whether or not they think that word should be in the dictionary. As always, evidence is the key, and the evidence shows a definite move towards using the word marriage to describe a same-sex union which has been formalized with a civil partnership.

Swayed by your prejudice you'd not include same sex marriage as a definition of marriage. Swayed by evidence the OED now include it as a new, subsidiary meaning.