urban (02/14/83)
The language didn't need a new word. Look up "consort."
mark (02/15/83)
#R:mitccc:-29200:zinfandel:9300006:000:736
zinfandel!mark Feb 14 11:32:00 1983
The only real problem seems to be that it doesn't work well for
gays, lesbians, menage-a-trois arrangements, (or bestiality!), or any other
non-heterosexual, non-binary setup.
Mark Wittenberg
...!decvax!sytek!zehntel!mark
PS. It seems to me that when 'gay' first gained currency that it referred
to either male or female homosexuals. For some time, though, it seems
to have been used almost entirely to refer to male homosexuals, leaving
'lesbians' for female homosexuals. Am I correct? if so, was it because
there was no word specifically meaning male homosexuals? It seems like
we need words for homosexual {men, women, unspecified}; any suggestions?
PPS. Anyone know how 'gay' came to its current usage?debenedi (02/15/83)
"Sother" is a much nicer word than "posslq." Sother comes from the phrase "signifigant other." Sother is good because it has the warm, loving, family tones of words like "brother" and "mother." Posslq, however, evokes the image of a small (and YES, cute) rodent playing dead. Which would you prefer to wake up to? Robert DeBenedictis yale-comix!debenedi
benson (02/16/83)
posslq a rodent ? Never, with that cute little pouch it must me a marsupial !! Peter Benson !decvax!ittvax!dcdwest
benson (02/18/83)
The Norse, who are some of our etymological benefactors, gave us another synonym for posslq, leman. Of course, we might as lief say leperson, but that would mix our sources. According to Poul Anderson in "The Last Viking", a story of Harald Hardrade, the mistress of the king would be called his leman and, often would have status equal to the wife. The etymology of the word suggests that it meant something like lover but it seems to have had a more substantive social position. Peter Benson ittdcd !decvax!ittvax!dcdwest
gh (02/19/83)
Okay, I looked up "consort", and it means (1) Associate; (2) Ship accompanying another; (3) Spouse. So it's hardly synonymous with "posslq", is it?
rhm (02/19/83)
"Leman" derived from the Norse? Any references?
arnold (02/20/83)
I, too, rushed to my Webster's to look up "consort", and found the definitions brunix!gh (do you have a name?) submits. However, I think I know better. "Consort" is used quite a bit to mean non- married sexual partner, often sharing domicile. I would submit that the dictionary is (gasp!) wrong. By the bye, my only problem with "leman" is that its primary pronunciation (Webster's, again, unfortunately) is the same as "lemon". My leman is anything BUT a lemon! Ken
ix222 (02/20/83)
"Sother"? who wants to be the brother/mother of a snake? steve
iv (02/21/83)
I admit it, I also rushed to my dictionary to look up consort, and found
the same things listed there. However, like Ken C R C Arnold, I remembered
another meaning or connotation to that word, that being of co-habitation
without marriage. Upon researching the thought, I found out where the idea
came from (at least in my mind). When a monarch or other person of royal
blood marries, the person that they marry is usually (and correctly) referred
to as their consort, as a person marrying into a royal family cannot be called
a king/queen prince/princess, as they are not. These then are referred to as
(for example) the queen consort, & etc. This WAS one of the definitions listed
by Websters (spouce). Consort is used in this case to differentiate between
someone married to a person of royal lineage.
jeIV
...{laidbak,microsoft}!trsvax!ivmcdaniel (02/24/83)
#R:mitccc:-29200:uiucdcs:19000011:000:1027
uiucdcs!mcdaniel Feb 23 20:35:00 1983
About royal marriages:
In Great Britain, as I recall, a ruling king is married to his queen,
but a ruling queen is married to her prince consort. Examples:
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (now the Queen Mother of Great
Britain), but Queen Elizabeth II and Philip Prince Consort, and
Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. King William and Queen Mary of
the Glorious Revolution was a special case (Queen Mary ruled, but
King William would have ruled if he survived her). This is the
practice in the Netherlands, I think. -- The reason for this rule, of
course, is that the rank of "King" is considered higher than that
of "Queen". Sexist, but most monarchies are, although some more
modern monarchies have recently changed the succession rule to avoid
sexual discrimination. BTW, in SCAdia (the Society for Creative
Anachronism), the ruler decides his/her consort's status and rank.
God save the Queen!
Tim McDaniel
(. . . pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel)