aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (01/25/85)
It has been remarked in other articles (and also off the net) that people have
numerous "significant others" in their lives at the same time, and quite
possibly none of these is an SO in the sense that term is usually used.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have SO stand for "Special One".
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
"Grate on the Lord, get on His nerves, and you shall get what you want...." :-)fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (02/18/85)
In article <pucc-h.1729> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: >It has been remarked in other articles (and also off the net) that people have >numerous "significant others" in their lives at the same time, and quite >possibly none of these is an SO in the sense that term is usually used. >Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have SO stand for "Special One". > That would be slightly better. However, many individuals are special to us in various ways at various times in our lives. I prefer scrapping "SO" completely. I am sick of acronyms. I already encounter too much of this kind of stupid pomposity in my work. What is wrong with using plain English? Instead of some crytic, psuedo-intellectual, lower-middle-class euphemism, just say "lover." The word "lover" accurately implies that the relationship is romantic, without necessarily implying that the relationship has been sexually consummated. Frank Silbermann University of North Carolina STAMP OUT AND ERADICATE SUPERFLUOUS REDUNDANCIES
lazeldes@wlcrjs.UUCP (Leah A Zeldes) (02/20/85)
In article <90@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >What is wrong with using plain English? Instead of some crytic, >psuedo-intellectual, lower-middle-class euphemism, just say "lover." >The word "lover" accurately implies that the relationship is romantic, >without necessarily implying that the relationship has been sexually >consummated. I may have missed part of this discussion, but I wonder what is wrong with "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" or, if those don't seem adult enough, "gentleman friend" and "lady friend"? These seem like simple, sedate terms. "Lover" really does have connotations that make introductions awkward. Actually, before we solved this problem by making it appropriate to use "fiance(e)," my gentleman friend and I just introduced each other by our names, occasionally prefaced by "This is my friend ------." It seemed to work fine. What business is it of anyone else's what the relationship is? -- Leah A Zeldes ...ihnp4!wlcrjs!lazeldes
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/21/85)
In article <602@wlcrjs.UUCP> lazeldes@wlcrjs.UUCP (Leah A Zeldes) writes: >In article <90@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >>What is wrong with using plain English? Instead of some crytic, >>psuedo-intellectual, lower-middle-class euphemism, just say "lover." >>The word "lover" accurately implies that the relationship is romantic, >>without necessarily implying that the relationship has been sexually >>consummated. First, this is what I mean by "lover" when I use it in private with friends who know what I mean. It stands a large chance of being misinterpreted in public though - I've heard it used in contexts where its primary meaning was sexual. >I may have missed part of this discussion, but I wonder what is wrong >with "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" or, if those don't seem adult enough, >"gentleman friend" and "lady friend"? These seem like simple, sedate >terms. I'm uncomfortable with "gentleman" and "lady", as with "boy" and "girl", because they may carry connotations that I really don't want to convey. >What business is it of anyone else's what the relationship is? What if I want to tell them, without being misunderstood?
ag5@pucc-k (I'm so happy) (02/21/85)
<<Short quote in this item.>> >What is wrong with using plain English? Instead of some crytic, >psuedo-intellectual, lower-middle-class euphemism, just say "lover." >The word "lover" accurately implies that the relationship is romantic, >without necessarily implying that the relationship has been sexually >consummated. I don't think so ... Just this afternoon I described a situation to someone who explicitly understood "lover" to mean that there was sexual activity occurring . . . And I ensured that nothing I said indicated this . . . <in this case, it happened to be a gay couple.> I have found that SO works just fine for me. Why fix it if it ain't broke? :-) -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services {ihnp4|decvax|icalqa|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "A Small and Sorry Tigger visited my office this afternoon ..."
rat@astrovax.UUCP (Stephen J. Ratcliff) (02/22/85)
[ Who? Who? WHO is Mr. Blue? ] > >It has been remarked in other articles (and also off the net) > >that people have > >numerous "significant others" in their lives at the same time, and quite > >possibly none of these is an SO in the sense that term is usually used. > >Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have SO stand for "Special One". > > That would be slightly better. However, many individuals are special > to us in various ways at various times in our lives. > I prefer scrapping "SO" completely. I am sick of acronyms. > > What is wrong with using plain English? Instead of some crytic, > psuedo-intellectual, lower-middle-class euphemism, just say "lover." > The word "lover" accurately implies that the relationship is romantic, > without necessarily implying that the relationship has been sexually > consummated. > If I recall correctly, the use of SO in this newsgroup began because the euphemism "significant other" was so common in the articles that it seemed safe and economical to abbreviate it. "Significant Other" was a useful generic term applied to persons of a wide variety of relationships, from legal mate to lover to bosum buddy. It, as well as MOTAS = member of the Appropriate sex, was and is used to descibe people in social situations for which the finer details of the relationship (for an SO) or the actual sex of the person (for an MOTAS) are unimportant (or perhaps embarrassing!). In this sense they are both useful. To redefine the meaning of "SO", then, seems like putting the cart before the horse. However, if the connotation of "SO" has indeed narrowed to "special one" or "sex object" or "lover", at least to some readers, then posters of articles should consider either being more explicit, or finding another generic term. For a time, "SO" and "MOTAS" served us quite well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Ratcliff Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!rat
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (02/22/85)
[] >The word "lover" accurately implies that the relationship is romantic, >without necessarily implying that the relationship has been sexually >consummated. This statement is simply not true. In common usage the word lover is often used to specifically imply that the relationship is a sexual one. SO was introduced because of the need for a word that described a broad range of relationships including those described by "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" but without explicitly mentioning gender (gender in this sense has been promoted from jocular to colloquial in the OCD 7th ed.). English lacks such a word, an interesting comment on the societies in which English developed. The endless quibbles pointing out that other people in one's life can be significant (or indeed special for that matter) are silly. The term "boyfriend" does not mean "a friend who is a boy", the term "Significant Other" does not mean "another person who is significant". Both terms have a much more specialized meaning. Like most English words the terms are difficult to define exactly (the meaning is inferred from common usage, and can change with time) and their meaning is dependent on context. The following is from the Oxford Concise Dictionary, 11th edition. Es'soe, -sow (eso) n. (colloq.) 1. One's current romantic partner; e.g. boyfriend, girlfriend, POSSELCUE, spouse (often but no exclusively implying sexual partner) [f. Significant Other; hence SO] William Hughes
jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) (02/23/85)
[Aren't you hungry...?] Having watched this discussion some, my impression is that the major problem with SO being replaced by boyfriend/girlfriend/lover is that these carry connotations that aren't necessarily wanted. Perhaps it is safe to say that "close friend" covers all of the bases people want in SO. On the other hand, assuming that sex can only happen with close friends is imposing my own values on the terms, and SO is intended to have that kind of nebulous flexibility. Jon Shapiro
bandy@lll-crg.ARPA (Andrew Scott Beals) (02/25/85)
A not-so-common but good phrase that I've heard is "associated
{fe,}male person".
andy beals
arpa: bandy@lll-crg
uucp: {ihnp4!mit-eddie,sun!lll-crg}!bandyfsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (03/03/85)
In article <sjuvax.896> jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) writes: >[Aren't you hungry...?] > > Having watched this discussion some, my impression is that the major >problem with SO being replaced by boyfriend/girlfriend/lover is that these >carry connotations that aren't necessarily wanted. > > Perhaps it is safe to say that "close friend" covers all of the bases >people want in SO. On the other hand, assuming that sex can only happen >with close friends is imposing my own values on the terms, and SO is >intended to have that kind of nebulous flexibility. > >Jon Shapiro Nebulous flexibility???? Are you recommending Hague-speak (re: Gen. Alexander Hague)? If you don't want your listeners or readers to infer any details about your relationship, then just shutup about it. Don't pollute the net with "nebulously flexible" (i.e. meaningless) jargon. Frank Silbermann University of North Carolina